Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 01:57:22PM -0400, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
>>Given the simplistic "block rotor" used for block allocation, reducing
>>the number of CGs can *only* make the problem worse.
> I don't think that's necessarily the case: consider the extreme case
> where there's only one CG.  Clearly, the problem is not worse.  For a
> disk of the same size, less CGs means less likelihood that any given
> CG is full; obviously, there's a balance against the longer seek to the
> next CG that a larger CG yields, but I don't think the result is as
> blindingly obvious as you do.

I think mycroft's argument is that a concurrent process busy in the same 
CG dramatically reduces I/O throughput available for te DVD burner. 
Which is not unfeasible, as in the late nineties CD-R(W) burners had 
issues with buffer underruns because the host machines couldn't handle 
the I/O throughput necessary. As DVD 1x is about CD 9x, it's not hard to 
imagine  this having an influence.

Cheers,
-- 
         Thomas E. Spanjaard
         tgen@netphreax.net