Question BurnAware damages BD-R discs
Question BurnAware damages BD-R discs
Hi,
I've been processing avi and mp4 files from an external hard drive onto a BD-R disc. Most operations have succeeded, but I recently damaged two discs, suspecting the problem lies with read/write speed.
I attempted to transfer files from the external HDD to the internal one to test if Windows encounters difficulties reading them. The process detected some corrupt files, and I've just destroyed the two damaged discs. The BurnAware log shows:
Data Disc - BurnAware Free
Files: 22, Folders: 2
E: PIONEER BD-RW BDR-207
BD-R, UDF 2.01, 53940 KB/s
Disc #1 of 1
[16:01:45] Applying settings
[16:01:45] Checking files
[16:01:46] Preparing compilation
[16:01:46] Anti-sleep mode activated
[16:02:04] Burn process started
[16:04:16] Closing track
[16:04:27] Burn process failed (A write-error occured.)
Total time: 00:02:41
Average write speed: 4.3x (19333 KB/s)
Interestingly, BurnAware tends to burn most discs at double speed, even though the discs are rated for six times faster. The discs are 50pcs Cakebox Verbatim 43812 BD-R SL Datalife 25GB 6x Inkjet Printable. The two damaged discs burned at 4.3x, yet BurnAware doesn’t allow speed adjustment—it claims to recognize the media but I’ve consistently used the same BD-R discs and still see fluctuations from 2x to 4x despite the ratings.
To investigate further, I’m using Windows 10 File Explorer for burning. If it completes within two hours, I’d expect the data read/write to drop to zero on a few files. This suggests possible file corruption. BurnAware indicates it can handle zero reads before starting writes once the error occurs. I’m unsure whether Windows is copying faulty files or if the files are simply being read poorly—despite disk fragmentation appearing fine, thousands of files are stored on a 2 TB drive, and the files seem intact.
I’ve freed over half a terabyte from the external drive recently. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I’m also curious about whether increasing the cache size in BurnAware could help it manage slower read operations.
In case memory size is an issue, here’s my current specs:
- Total Physical Memory: 8 GB
- Available Physical Memory: 2.98 GB
- Total Virtual Memory: 16 GB
- Available Virtual Memory: 7.71 GB
- Page File Space: 8 GB
- Under Windows 10
Pioneer BDR 207BK has previously burned several TBs recently, but it’s included here for reference.
Any suggestions would be helpful.
Here is the rewritten version:
Hi Ralston18
I believe my inquiry might need clearer wording; I was trying to pose a software-related question.
Thank you for your feedback.
The burner functions properly and continues burning without issues, even with non-problem files.
I've relied on BD-R discs for years from a reliable source, so that's not the cause.
The hardware/software limitations aren't strictly 2x or 4x—sometimes it reaches up to 5x speed, which is what happened here. I wondered if that played a role.
After further research and testing, the file copying and moving appear to be the problem.
Test.
1. I used Windows 10's burning feature and watched it process the same files for about two hours. The burn took longer, but at least five files completed successfully. Windows stopped reading data after reaching zero kb, requiring several attempts before it could restart. This indicates BurnAware may have a limit on how many times it waits for data, so it halted when time ran out.
2. Windows 10 confirmed the disk wasn't fragmented. I ran another defragmentation tool, which showed fragmentation at 34%. Even then, over 50% of the files were fragmented. I attempted to run the defrag utility, but after an hour it only reached 1%, suggesting it couldn't handle the drive's condition. With hundreds of large files (450 MB to 4 GB) and thousands of smaller ones (1 to 25 MB), this is concerning.
3. The drive was also 80% full. It's a SATA 5400 rpm model, which I should have replaced sooner. I should have backed up data earlier. As you know, once an SATA drive reaches 75% capacity, read speeds can drop significantly—this is not ideal for burning data.
4. Forgive me, I was surprised when you asked if burning to BD-R was necessary. I'm currently burning around 8 TB of files, with about 7 TB already done. If I used an SSD, it would take roughly 600 seconds for 8 TB, and I'd need another drive for redundancy—over a thousand drives would be required for adequate protection. While SSDs are excellent, they're not ideal for backup in this context.
5. I was considering LTO 4 or 5 tapes, which are affordable on eBay. However, the interface isn't suited for non-enterprise users, and although tape offers great durability, it requires bulky equipment that isn't very portable.
Result
I've identified the issue as likely a mix of fragmented disks, possibly corrupted files, and an overfull HDD that should have been backed up long ago.
So, for future reference, please keep this in mind. I hope it serves as a warning, and I’ve compiled some insights based on my experience, along with Ralston18’s helpful suggestions.
Backup strategy.
Case Study
Hundreds of files (450 MB to 4 GB)
Thousands of files (1 MB to several MB)
Determine the data per tier. Enterprises usually follow a five-year cycle; plan your approach based on past performance and anticipate the next five years—consider doubling storage capacity then.
Storage Organization
i) I would have preferred 2 x 1 TB drives for the thousands of small files, as they're better suited than large data files. Keeping them separate makes sense.
ii) For big files, use 2 x 2TB or 2 x 4TB bus-powered drives. With 2 x 2TB drives, I archive large files on two drives and avoid writing to them afterward. This keeps one drive free for reading. Since I only write once per drive, and most HDDs can handle around 1000TB of writes, this offers strong reliability.
iii) Reserve a third set for new files—probably 2 x 2 or 4TB drives for the next five years.
NAS
Two 8 TB drives in a RAID 1 array seem appealing, but I only need backup, not media servers or FTP access. Most files are rarely accessed, so archiving them makes sense. RAID 1 adds resilience, though a failed drive would require replacing it. Buying large storage units for infrequently used data is costly and less eco-friendly. NAS consumes more electricity than using bus-powered drives, which use less.
Silverstone
An attractive option is the Silverstone SST-DS223 External dual-Bay 2.5" RAID enclosure with USB 3.1 Type-C gen 2. It's bus-powered and uses RAID 1, meaning two drives. However, it still requires more storage management than a purely archival approach.
RAID 5 or 6
If budget allowed, RAID 5 or 6 would offer better resilience and confidence in archiving. But these are much more expensive and energy-intensive compared to the alternatives.
Final Note:
Don’t let your storage grow so far that you’re stuck with a difficult decision later. If data loss becomes a risk, act now to avoid potential disaster—just as anything fails, you could lose years of information. Remember, your current setup could fail today and impact everything.
Thanks again for your insights, Ralston18.