multiple burning/simultaneous burning

[mic2x]

hi, is it possible to use a house computer in multiple burning????for example if i had 2 dvd+-rw and using lets say Nero 7 to burn just 1 image file, instead of waiting for the first to finish, i could use both dvd+-rw to burn????can any1 help on this...

[fatbloke88]

not sure about nero but you can burn from an image file to two drives with DiscJuggler

[jimmalenko]

I've used Nero in the past to burn to 2 CDs simultaneously so I don't see why 2 DVDs wouldn't work. However, my experience was that it was probably quicker to just use the one drive and set the quantity to 2.

[Krispy Kritter]

I agree with jimmalenko, it was faster to burn the 2 discs separately (back to back) as opposed to simultaneously.

[vico1]

I've used Alcohol 120% to burn one iso to both of my pioneers...No prob,
just as fast as burning one. (within a couple seconds)

And, that's with a 107 & 109 with dif firmware.
(not officially recommended...but works for me!)

[Krispy Kritter]

Just to clarify, this works fine for cd's. I don't expect you would have as good results with dvd, there is a lot more data bandwidth needed.

[mic2x]

kk guys thanks for the replies, hmmm....i wonder if possible my system will be quad core intel, would that make a big difference lets say not just dvd+-RW but 4 drives at the same time......

[mic2x]

and also an additional question, not related to the multiple burning, but how fast is intel in encoding/decoding and converting AVI files to DVD ?????can any1 give estimated times, with a dual core processor.......so that i could have an idea on this....coz basically i have a AMD processor and never tried on intel up to this point.....i just want 2 knw how fast is it.....thanks guys.

[vico1]

Just to clarify, this works fine for cd's. I don't expect you would have as good results with dvd, there is a lot more data bandwidth needed.

I WAS speaking of DVD video iso's. (single layer burns)

I've used it on this now aging system, with no problems. (burning at 6x)
Opsys: XP Pro
Proc: 3.2 @3.5 overclock (30cap Northwood, light watercool ExosAL)
Mobo: Abit IC7-MAX3 (also used on Abit AI7, same config and worked)
Mem: 1Gig Corsair XMS4400 (matched 512)
Two Pioneer burners (107 & 109)
Two Seagate 250gig HDD

Data bandwith aside...for me, works like a champ!

[smitbret]

I regularly burn the same image, 3 at a time with Nero or with ImgBurn or DVD Decrypter. Two internals on separate IDE channels and a 3rd in an external enclosure on USB 2.0. I always burn at 4x when I do all three, mostly just cuz my external won't burn at 8x. I have also burnt to the two IDEs at the same time at 8x. It only takes about 1 to 2 minutes longer than burning to one at a time, and I have seen no difference in results. Just make sure you're not using the HDD where the image is located or you will see a significant slow down. From my experience, mixing brands or models hasn't made any difference, I've used Pioneer 109 & 110, Plextor 740A, and Benq 1640 & 1650 in several different configurations and they all worked fine, except that the Plextor wasn't recognized in my external enclosure. I haven't noticed any additional CPU or system usage when I've burnt all 3 instead of just 1.
-Brett

[mic2x]

ok guys, thanks for the insight of all this....if any1 would like to add more experience of multiple burns pleas do so...please dont close this tread.... thanks.....its informative.

[Cornucopia]

I've got an old CD dupe tower (16xSpeed x 8drives) that crapped its MOBO, so I left the drives in the tower and ran the SCSI cabling over to a regular PC (which was then equipped with 2 scsi cards). I run Nero 5.5.x Enterprise Ed. and regularly can burn ALL 8 at 16x no problems.

Obviously, DVD throughput rates are gonna be alot higher, but if you extrapolate your needs...

I would think a high-powered PC with 2 Firewire cards (not just ports, but different controllers of same make) and daisy chain to external FW drives (4 to each controller) would do the trick. Much of the bottleneck of overhead would be alleviated because of Firewire's direct peer-to-peer access (USB2 would have to go through the CPU everytime).

Scott