From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 21 13:42:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rah.star-gate.com (216-200-29-190.snj0.flashcom.net [216.200.29.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDB514C17 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:42:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA41793; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:38:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Message-Id: <199908212038.NAA41793@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Wilko Bulte , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How To Burn CDs In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:30:09 PDT." <19990821123009.H56777@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:38:54 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > "Another possibility, if you have the RAM, is to use the team(1) > > > > program (it's in the ports) to buffer the data as it goes to the burner. > > > > > > Any reason not to use ``cdrecord -fs=64m'' (or some simular size) > > > > Any reason to? I mean, I never had to go over the default cdrecord uses. > > Since the author was already suggesting the use of team(1) he obvisiously > wants a larger buffer. I was mearly asking if there was something about > team(1) better than ``cdrecord -fs=XX''. > To me in the context of cdrecord, cdrecord's option "fs" and team are about the same. Perhaps someone more familiar with cdrecord fifo.c's circular buffer algorithm and team can express a different opinion. Cheers -- Amancio Hasty hasty@rah.star-gate.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message