Is it possible to have "8 Roms copy 4 dvds on-the-fly 8x speed" in one PC?

Has anyone tried or heard of such?
That is having 4 DVD readers and 4 DVD writers hooked up to the same PC.
For the pourpose of making fast copies of different DVD’s. To copy 4 different DVD’s to 4 different DVD-/+R On-The-Fly at 8x-12x speed.

I have about 900 copies of DVD mov(cough)… stuff. Storing this on hard drive would requier 4-5 terrabytes of space, which would be too expensive, and I would have to upgrade every month to acomodate new (cough) stuff that arrives (about 30-40 new dvd’s every week). So for simplicity I store tham on DVD-r’s.

Every now and then I have to make copies of a lot of them (~100-300/week).
My setup used to be 2 readers and 2 writers, s I could use Alcohol 120% to copy 2 different disks on the fly at once at 4x speed. So it took me 13 hours of continuos burning to get 100 disks ready. Now switching to 8x speed would lessen the time take by half = 7~8 hours, but doubling the readers/writers would split even that in half = 3.5~4 hours for 100 DVD-r’s.

Yes multiply PC’s would work, but its a lot of expense, also the hasle of extra monitors or monitor switches.

So my question is, do you think is possible to us one PC with 8 DVD drives burning 4 DVD’s on the fly 8x speed silmutaniosly??? Do you thing it would work??? Can system bandwith handle the flow of data on the PCI bus or what ever??? What about processor, can it deal with this???

What do you guys think??

P.S: excuse my spelling please!

of course it’s possible the FBI arrests people with those types of setups all the time.

Assuming you are copying 4 different discs, it would be theoretically possible to have the source drive and burning drive on the same IDE channel, and run 4 instances of Nero at the same time, but the source drives will need to read no slower than the burn speed. This means that you would likely wind up burning at 2.4x. :Z This is because most ROM drives start reading at 3x with CAV strategy, while 4x burning is CLV. If the discs being copied all read at higher speed, then 4x burning would be possible.

Then you need 4 IDE channels that are all ATAPI compliant and DMA enabled, with one reader and one burner on each channel. The potential for problems is high, and use of PCI controllers is not recommended for burning.

Say goodbye to system resources for sure. I can usually get away with ripping 3 dvds at once and that really slows things down. They are all on separate ide channels and all separate hard drives, all on indepedent channels. Although granted one drive is a SATA… so it can usually handle ripping two discs to the same drive. Not saying that a regular ide hd couldn’t handle, just thought I would throw that in.

He’s not talking about ripping, just copying. Big difference, there’s no HD activity.

for at least all recording programs i can think of, there’s still hard drive activity when you copy on-the-fly. the reading drive has to fill the recording program’s software buffer, so parts of the disc are ripped onto the hard drive as the recording drive depletes the software buffer.

I tought the buffer was in the memory not the hard drive. When ever i copy on the fly my harddrive is never used, so i guess you are wrong there.

On the fly 8x is possible with fast reader (eg Toshiba, lite-on) these start at 7.2x speed to read, and 8x burning starts at 6x (as it is P-CLV) then goes/switches to 8x at 10% (or so). Actualy I have copied 8x on the fly, I used NEC3500 for reader and pioneer 108 for writing (nec reads realy fast and is not as sensitive as the lite-on or the toshiba with hacked firmware).

my mistake, you and rdgrimes are right, that’s what i was thinking of. i forgot that the buffer is stored in the system’s memory, not the hard drive.

Still it’s good to keep in mind that Nero will want 80MB of available memory per burn, or it will use the paging file. 80 x 4 = 320MB.

I have 1 Gig:) and I dont use nero, cause it freezes on multiple on-the-fly burns, it can burn 1 iso to multiple burners, but cant burn multiple source to multiple burners (on-the-fly) at least i never succeded. But anyhow in nero of even in Alcohol (which) i use, the buffer level can be set from 4Mb to 128Mb. I use 128, but nothing went wrong when i used 20Mb either, I think it only realy matters if the source is not fast enough to provide the adequate data.

A very good alternative to Nero, especially as far as multiple on the fly burning is concerned, is DiscJuggler (it’s optimised for professional environments). Unfortunately, it’s not cheap.

I have been more tha satisfied with Alcohol 120%, for multiple on-the-fly coping. but am open to new thing, I checked uot the DiscJuggler site (that you linked), but I did not find anything special about it, in respect of my intention of use for coping. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, but i did not see them specify that, for example this is what i would fing very useful in a multiple copy program: Setting up some king of batch mode (pre-preogramed) so that when I insert the disk (originals and blank) I will not have to spend 3 mins, selecting in the program that I want it to copy from G: to H:, E: to D: and so on. It would be great to have that implimented, so when I insert the disks, all I have to do is click a button and all the coping starts, in the pre defined mode.

I used to have to do the following:

  1. Start Alcohol 120%
  2. Select source drive (a) (e.g.: Drive J:)
  3. Select writer (a) (e.g.: Drive N:)
  4. Start Copy.
  5. Start Alcohol 120%
  6. Select source drive (b)
  7. Select writer (b)
  8. Start Copy
    and so on for the number of writers i have.

this dont seem to be much work for 1 or 2 instances, but when you have to copy a lot, its realy tiering.

But I have found a solution, now all I have to is insert all the disks and click one single button and the whole (earlier listed process) is automated all the way. If anyone is interest in how, I can explain.

Anyway back to my question: Is Diskjugler able to do this??? I mean the automate part, if yes then i will have to get my hands on it. If not, then what advantages (that I might requiere) does it have over Alcohol for me to want to change. I am just asking in case you have used it, so you can fill me in.

Discjuggler is geared towards professional mastering and duplication, but the fees for the multiple burner licences are quite high. The reason I mentioned it is the robustness of the burning engine, which means that it can easily handle multiple burning sessions simultaneously. However, I don’t know how far you can automatise the whole process with “normal” burning equipment (DiscJuggler definitely can do that in combination with autoloaders etc.), but maybe someone from Padus can answer that (some Padus employees participate in this forum, too).