NanoBot
17th December 2003, 00:41
Hi Folks,
I would like to suggest a feature to future versions of rejig. My idea ist that rejig could work much faster whenever the user has two or more different physical harddrives ( not partitions ).
Imagine the first HD connected to the first IDE controller, the second HD connected to the second IDE controller and the DVD-Rom also on the second IDE controller. Under this circumstances the fastest way to rejig a DVD should be:
Demultiplex from the DVD to the first HD, which avoids the master/slave problem.
Correcting the AC3 delay of the audio streams and the compression of the video stream then should be done by reading from the first HD and writing to the second HD. If there are any subtitle streams and an operation on them is necessary, it should also be done this way. If no operation on them is needed ( i don't know ), they are are simply to be copied to the second HD. After all of this is done, all ES files on the first HD already could be erased to conserve HD space.
The next step then is to multiplex the VOBs by reading from the second HD and writing the result to the first HD, while splitting to 1GB parts might be done on the fly, if this is possible.
Using such a disk allocation strategie imho should be much faster and might also be the better solution for the lifetime of the HDs, since much less head movements are necessary. At least I remember that muxxing my SVCDs with BBMPEG was much faster when using different drives for source und target files.
What do you think about that idea ?
C.U. NanoBot
I would like to suggest a feature to future versions of rejig. My idea ist that rejig could work much faster whenever the user has two or more different physical harddrives ( not partitions ).
Imagine the first HD connected to the first IDE controller, the second HD connected to the second IDE controller and the DVD-Rom also on the second IDE controller. Under this circumstances the fastest way to rejig a DVD should be:
Demultiplex from the DVD to the first HD, which avoids the master/slave problem.
Correcting the AC3 delay of the audio streams and the compression of the video stream then should be done by reading from the first HD and writing to the second HD. If there are any subtitle streams and an operation on them is necessary, it should also be done this way. If no operation on them is needed ( i don't know ), they are are simply to be copied to the second HD. After all of this is done, all ES files on the first HD already could be erased to conserve HD space.
The next step then is to multiplex the VOBs by reading from the second HD and writing the result to the first HD, while splitting to 1GB parts might be done on the fly, if this is possible.
Using such a disk allocation strategie imho should be much faster and might also be the better solution for the lifetime of the HDs, since much less head movements are necessary. At least I remember that muxxing my SVCDs with BBMPEG was much faster when using different drives for source und target files.
What do you think about that idea ?
C.U. NanoBot