Burn 2 dvds at once on the same Comp?

[KingAtRock]

Is it possible to burn 2 dvds at once on the same comp? I've got 2 burners, and i plan on only burning at 4x on both, would that work? I took out the 2nd and put it in my old comp and was getting crappy errors, was wondering if i could put it back in and burn 2 at once.


1.47ghz amd
512 133ram
Slow comp I know so i just want to know if its possible or if anyone has done this, thanks.

[eamonnq]

This should be no problem, I have done it quite often. I usually use Nero for both and have had no problems.

Give it a go!!!

[mats.hogberg]

Can be done, yes. Like opening 2 instances of DVDDecrypter, writing the same ISO to 2 different drives. Will it be faster than writing 1 at the time? Dunno. Try it.

/Mats

[jtoolman2000]

Use Nero and choose "Multiple Burners"

[Epicurus8a]

Shouldn't be a problem, but you might want to check thecoalman's advice in this link: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=256381&highlight=

His idea is really sweet!

[handyguy]

I do it, but it has to be the same image.

[KingAtRock]

Thanks, i'll give it a try right now and post how it goes,
u guys always have the know-how and good advice.. fast too!

[eamonnq]

I have had no problems running two instances of Nero selecting different drives and then burning two different movies, or using DVDdecrypter for burning on one drive and Nero on the other.

[bazooka]

I have had no problems running two instances of Nero selecting different drives and then burning two different movies, or using DVDdecrypter for burning on one drive and Nero on the other.

That is good, but it is not really encouraged, because coasters can result.

[steve2713]

I have had no problems running two instances of Nero selecting different drives and then burning two different movies, or using DVDdecrypter for burning on one drive and Nero on the other.

At what speed though? If it is at 4x or less and you would normally burn at 8x or faster, there's not really much reason to do this, except to raise your odds of a bad burn.

[bazooka]

I have had no problems running two instances of Nero selecting different drives and then burning two different movies, or using DVDdecrypter for burning on one drive and Nero on the other.

At what speed though? If it is at 4x or less and you would normally burn at 8x or faster, there's not really much reason to do this, except to raise your odds of a bad burn.

I agree.

You are risking the chance of getting coasters.

[KingAtRock]

Like all custom problems its my circumstance. I burn usually 2 copies of the same image for myself and a friend, however i cant burn at 8x cuz my comp is too damn slow (already tried all types diff media and dif progs etc for 1 month of nothing but bad burns).

I do have 2 dvd burners now and sincei can only do 4x, why not burn 2 images at once, i have another comp but keep getting weird errors on it, which i never got when i had that dvd burner in my newer comp... confused ? hehe anyway thats "why bother" cuz its just a case of whats more convenient.

[bazooka]

Like all custom problems its my circumstance. I burn usually 2 copies of the same image for myself and a friend, however i cant burn at 8x cuz my comp is too damn slow (already tried all types diff media and dif progs etc for 1 month of nothing but bad burns).

I do have 2 dvd burners now and sincei can only do 4x, why not burn 2 images at once, i have another comp but keep getting weird errors on it, which i never got when i had that dvd burner in my newer comp... confused ? hehe anyway thats "why bother" cuz its just a case of whats more convenient.

Computers are not infallible.

Dvd burning directly accesses your ram and is processor intensive.

You rarely gain anything by doing this. In fact you increase your chances of creating a coaster. It is not worth it.

[victoriabears]

Yes I would guess that you end up taking the same amount of time, if it works and you are having lucnh I suppose its a good idea.

A beer with that lunch would also help.

[RMaddog]

You guys may not want to believe this however it's true in my case.

I open 2 Nero sessions and burn 2 completely different DVD's at the same time. I burn at 8x and have done this many many times and have never had a coaster as of yet. I know it's hard to believe but at the same time I am burning both DVD's I also have Shrink going ripping another DVD.

[steve2713]

The 2 DVDs at once at 8x is REALLY pushing it, but then you claim to also be ripping a disc to the HD at the same time? If you are actually doing this, something's got to give. While all this is certainly POSSIBLE, are both discs actually burning at 8x - as in both discs burning in about 8 1/2 minutes? And the ripping speed has got to be VERY slow while burning two discs, I just wouldn't try it myself. I've done 2 discs of the same content at 4x at once before, but that's about the limit before I see burn speed decreasing. Once that happens, you're running the risk of having burning problems.

[RMaddog]

Steve, Yes both burners are burning at 8x as I have 2 DVD's pop out every 7 to 8 minutes. The burning uses very little processing power, maybe 10 to 15% and the ripping uses the rest and it does slow down the ripping a little but not more than 5 to 10 minutes. I am running Athlon 2600+ 512MB DDR333 W2K and have a NEC 3500 and a Pioneer A08.

[Skith]

I agree that burnind two different images at once is risky. Another think to keep in mind, is if you use Nero with "multiple recorders," I am pretty sure they must be the same make/model and have the same firmware.

Another thing to consider is how the drives are physically connected to the computer.

For best results (least chance of a coaster), each drive should be on a seperate controller (Source/Hard disk, recorder 1, recorder 2).

This is not a problem if you are running a SATA hard drive. If all devices are IDE, then (with most motherboards) you should add a PCI IDE controller, and place the hard drive on that, and each burner on the motherboard IDE controllers (IDE0 and IDE1).

If you want to RISK coasters, and try burning two different images at once, each image should be on its own hard disk, on its own controller, and the same for the burners. Buffer underruns may occur, and the protection drives offer is not fullproof.

To those who say it works: You arer lucky, but have you watched the burning process? Have buffer underrund been occurring? How long does the process take? It would probably be quicker to burn one at a time at 8x or 12x. Of course, if it works for you, then I hope it continues to work.

Good luck everyone!

[handyguy]

If I want to do 2 types of dvds, I use 2 computers.

[mats.hogberg]

Dvd burning directly accesses your ram and is processor intensive.

You sure about that? Hell, we burned CD-R using a 486 33 MHz with 16 MB ram for Gods sake! It's I/O intensive, that I can agree on, but that's about it, AFAIK.

/Mats

[bazooka]

Dvd burning directly accesses your ram and is processor intensive.

You sure about that? Hell, we burned CD-R using a 486 33 MHz with 16 MB ram for Gods sake! It's I/O intensive, that I can agree on, but that's about it, AFAIK.

/Mats

Yes - I am sure.

DMA stands for direct memory access - All dvd burners bypass the operating system and access the ram directly.

That is a lot of data to move at one time.

This is a huge difference between cd-burning and this.

[steve2713]

That's what makes it so difficult - the amount of data being transferred. Burning two discs at 8x with different data, PLUS writing another disc to the HD? Without doing the math, that's alot of F'in data to move at once, most systems would not be able to handle it, it's not about the CPU resources being used so much as I/O as mats.hogberg puts it.

Regarding not slowing down the ripping more than 5-10 minutes, I rip single layer discs in 5 minutes, dual layer in about 12-15 minutes, so I really don't see the risk in bothering to rip at the same time. If it is a 5-10 minute increase, it clearly isn't doing much ripping at all, just using up more resources.

[tacoman97x]

I have burned @ 8x to 3 burners at the same time from an iso image on the HD. 2 burners on IDE channels (NEC 3520a @ Pioneer DVR 108) and the 3rd on USB2 (Liteon SOH 1213s) without any coasters. But, of course all these burners are running off seperate controllers... I have 512mb ram and AMD 2600+ overclocked..... It's all about having seperate controllers and IDE channels open (without slaves attached), thats how I got success in burning to multiple drives at the same time. I also have a 1 Gig P3 with 256mb of ram that runs 3 old HP DVD 200i burners.... burn 3 DVD+R's @ 2.4x with same image. I wouldn't rip @ the same time that you burn as well, it takes away connection speed on the controllers, slowing down burn time or making a possible coaster.... then also slowing down your rip onto that same Hard Drive .. taking 14, or 15 minutes for some dvd 5 to rip. It's detrimental and unneeded, do the tasks seperately it's more efficient and faster production wise and of course knocks down the chances of an evil coaster bomb.....

[steve2713]

Using the same ISO image will be less demanding than separate data for each disc.

[KingAtRock]

I tossed in my a05 along side my sony 710a

burned the same image with nero with multiple recorders, re-checked with neros disc scan thing, 100% perfect on both, tried on 3 dvds players each, scanned through with no issues.

So as long as i stick to the same image it should be fine

it took 16:03 burning at 4x total time (spindown included) where it usually takes 15:10 or so for 1 at a time so not bad at all, however next im going to try 2 different images hehe.

[mats.hogberg]

OK, I don't want to make an issue about this, but:

directly accesses your ram and is processor intensive.

DMA stands for direct memory access - All dvd burners bypass the operating system and access the ram directly.
- All dvd burners bypass the operating system and access the ram directly.

"DMA is nothing more than a way to bypass the CPU to get to system memory and/or I/O. A short code fragment that reads from a port, stores to memory, increments pointers, decrements a loop counter, and then repeats based on the value of the counter takes quite a few clock cycles per byte copied. A hardware DMA controller can do the same with no wasted cycles and no CPU intervention."

This is a huge difference between cd-burning and this.

Yes. The diff is the data rate.

/Mats

[eamonnq]

Am not sure about the drop in speed thing but had a 4x and an 8x and never had any problems (but reading all this I think I must have been lucky!!).
I do however have 3 x 512mb ram installed so this may have helped!!
Am going to put the 8X in alongside the 16X and try it again and will let you know how I get on.