Re: [Bug-xorriso] Formating of DVD-RAM fails

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

> I also get sometimes 3  31  00 errors and there are a lot.

3 31 00 MEDIUM FORMAT CORRUPTED

libburn is supposed to report it as
  "Medium unformatted or format corrupted"

(I just added 3 32 00 to the list of texts in libburn/spc.c)


> Its impossible to format it with spare areas, the format process
> hangs sooner or later.

So it is a classic coaster. With an unpractical hole
in the middle.


> I thought DVD-RAM is the most reliable.

I have never seen them performing superior to DVD+RW.

> The DVD-RAM fanboys say:
> It has more overwrites,

So slow that the universe will end before the medium
is worn out ?

> it has spare areas,

Which works even worse than the bad blocks.

> it is hard sectored,

Oh yeah. The writable side exposes an interesting pattern
which might even keep in it a shorter proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem ...

> it's better, it's the best.

My favorite re-usable medium currently is BD-RE, followed
by DVD+RW.


> Technically DVD+RW and DVD-RAM seem to be much the same.

DVD+RW leaves out all the bullshit at the expense of giving
up the nominal advantages. (But there is a special formatting
by which a suitable drive can make CD-RW, DVD-RW, and DVD+RW
appear with Spare Area: Mount Rainier aka MRW.)

One cannot use DVD-RAM for an unaware read-write filesystem.
The performance is just too awful and media failure comes
much too early.
Aware filesystems (which buffer and write large chunks of data)
work fine with formatted media without Spare Area and Defect
Management.
So i see no use case for size crippled, slow, and expensive
DVD-RAM.


> > [DVD+RW] are more reliable,
> But why? 

I find few other explanation than: Less bullshit.
(Less demanding to drive accuracy and its pysical components ?)


Have a nice day :)

Thomas