Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: "James J. Weinkam" <jjw@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:02:59 GMT
Peter Brown wrote:
At least with IDE burners, my experience with at least six different models has been that the burner must be master and there must be no other activity on the same IDE controller while burning is going on.
Tip: Burners seem to prefer to be Master with ROMs as Slave rather than the reverse.
For several years, I had a problem with having burns fail seemingly at random, both for cd's and dvd's. I started keeping a log of all failures and eventually noticed that there were blocks of consecutive failures for which the time of failure was the same number of minutes after the hour for several failures in a row. It occurred to me to compare these times with my boot log and I found that any burn failures between two consecutive boots always occurred at the same number of minutes after the hour. I think it was Paul Ratcliffe who told me that every hour on the hour after boot the WPS shell checks every drive in the system for some unknown reason. cdrecord or dvddao has locked the burner using its scsi address, but the burner is also known by a drive letter When the WPS checks this drive letter or that of any other drive on the same controller during a burn I get another coaster..The solution was to use the --lock parameter in dvddao and the lockdrive parameter of cdrecord2 to lock not only the burner but also any other atapi drive on the same controller by their drive letters. Unfortunately the latest version of cdrecord seems to have a bug. lockdrive does not work when burning audio cd's. Fortunately these only take three or four minutes and I just check the time before starting a burn when I remember to do so. When I forget the probability of failure is only about 6%. This phenomenon only seems to occur on systems with ASUS motherboards...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Ilya Zakharevich
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- References:
- Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: William L. Hartzell
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: William L. Hartzell
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Steve Wendt
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Nobody
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Peter Brown
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Mike Luther
- Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- From: Peter Brown
- Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- Prev by Date: Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- Next by Date: Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- Previous by thread: Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- Next by thread: Re: Strange PEER error with Dani's 506 1.81 generic question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|