> > > > "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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
