Why arn't there SCSI DVD Writers?

[tellman]

Does it has to do with the fact that general DVD burner at 4x is way to slow so there is no gain feeding it data as SCSI speeds?

[dvd_maniac]

if you think about it. 16x burning/reading does not even tax the old ide interface (which is cheaper). They are coming out with SATA models now, but I think people will move to them only for better airflow or want to get rid of IDE in their systems altogether.

Now SCSI is so much more expensive and you would get almost no benefits out of it.

[tellman]

Well. i guess... 22.26Mb per second after all at 16x, even though i would never risk waisting a DVD... plus most of the modern SCSI controllers can block non LVD drives... Just was wondering how not to slow down my system... i do a lot of DVD burning.

[zacoz]

You need to work out what is the priority for you. You mention you wouldn't want to waste a DVD (less than $1 ?). If you don't want to waste a dollar by risking a coaster, then I guess you need to either:
burn discs as fast as you can doing nothing else with the system - restricting other system availablility for as short a period as possible, or
burn discs as slow as you can so that other usage doesn't result in an empty buffer and a coaster - still fairly limited in what you can safely do however (no games)
If number one isn't suitable for you (you must burning a hell of a lotta discs or rather impatient), the best solution may be to get an old secondhand system to use for burning. It'd be cheaper than setting up your system with a SCSI HD & Burner (assuming you're not already SCSI setup). I use a PIII-450 and can still burn at 6x.

[tellman]

The system i'm setting up needs to be able to burn almost non-stop. Obviously I'd like it to burn each disk as fast as possible, BUT quality is more importaint, so I'd ruther burn at 8x or if error rate is more than 5% at 4x (might be too slow for me.) This is not a DVD duplicator - rather a DVD publisher, so each disk is diffferent. At the same time the system "builds" DVD folders for the next burn (no transcoding just fetching files from network into proper folder structure.) So on one hand I don't want burning (btw there are 4 burners) bottleneck everything else. Also I though direct SCSI interface HD to Burner would speed up tranfer with minimal CPU load.

[LightningFire]

Reliability of ATAPI burners has increased hugely with the myriad of bufferunderrun systems that all proof effective. I would set up a system with as many non-RAID sata interfaces as possible, and S-ata burners.
Maybe check some reviews for cpu usage (nero CD-DVD-speed info dialogs), I really believe this is generally below 5 percent. The only problem is transfers on the same interface-therefore totally sata, and multiple disks so that you do not acces the disk that is being burnt from. Disk accesses (and windows multitasking if windows is on same HD as burn-to-DVD-source disk) is major source of delays, safely buffered thanks to buffer-underrun-protections, in my experience.

SCSI single speed burner (http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_17573091_34115_tab=B,00.html?compName=PNA_ProductDetailComponent) (I believe pioneer's earliest, DVR-103 and maybe newer also had versions with scsi interface)