CDRInfo Forum CDRInfo Forum

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general)   Logged in as: Guest
Viewers: 669 You can click here to see Today's Posts | Most Active Topics | Posts Since Last Visit
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Optical Storage] >> CD, DVD, BD Drives >> Writing Quality >> PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/7/2004 12:00:16 PM   
Halc

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 2/4/2002
From:
Status: offline
Not having waded through the DVD error detection algorithm with a comb, I must ask:

Based on what has been said, Mediatek chipset can only report PIF, not PO.

A PIF error is an erroneus uncorrectable row in an ECC block.

A single row has several columns of PO EDC data.

So, a single PIF can result in multiple POs.

Right?

A PO error is likely to be fixed if only a few rows were unfixable.

So, is there a statistical correlation between number of PIFs (number of uncorrectable erroneus rows in a block) and the likelihood of getting a POF (a PO error that cannot be corrected for)?.

If so, has anybody plotted this?

regards,
halcyon
Post #: 1
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/7/2004 2:19:40 PM   
emperor


Posts: 7210
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
As KProbe author have said:

1. MediaTek Chip returns the PI/PO value every 1 ECC block
2. KProbe1 collects 8 PI/PO values and sums them to a PI/PO record.
3. KProbe2 collects 8 PI values and sums them to a PI record. And it saves every PO value as a PO record.

Chip returns the data every 1 ECC block(16 blocks). But chip is passive, Kprobe must issue command to get the data. But it is impossible for kprobe to issue command every 1 ECC block(16 blocks).. the best situation is exactly 1 ECC block(16 blocks), but most of situations is about 19,20 even 30 blocks at the end of disc. So Kprobe will lose its precision in low performance system ,especially when the max speed is selected.

(in reply to Halc)
Post #: 2
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/7/2004 2:28:40 PM   
emperor


Posts: 7210
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
Just to ask your question, according to specs:

* According to the ECMA 339, a row of an ECC Block that has at least 1 byte in error constitutes a PI error. If a row of an ECC Block contains more than 5 erroneous bytes, the row is said to be “PI-uncorrectable”.
* The total PI errors within 8 consecutive ECC sectors (PI sum 8) should not be greater than 280. This is, as it were, the error rate of the raw data. The lower it is, the more headroom is available to cope with wear and tear from scratches, marks and ageing due to heat or sunlight.
* The DVD+R specification (ECMA 349) furthermore prescribes that in any ECC Block the number of PI-uncorrectable rows should not exceed 4, after the first, inner parity, error correction (Parity Inner Fails, PIF)
* Errors that can’t be corrected by the second, outer parity, correction are finally the ones that a user will notice as actual data errors. Values greater than zero are not acceptable for the POF (Parity Outer Fails).

(in reply to emperor)
Post #: 3
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/8/2004 5:24:35 AM   
Halc

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 2/4/2002
From:
Status: offline
Some corrections/clarifications.

1. Mediatek chipset counts Parity Inner Errors (PIE) and Parity Inner Failuers (PIF) passively and those measures can be sampled at the maximum rate of c. 1 ECC block/sample interval

2. ECC Block = 16 scrambled main data frames (not really blocks).

3. We have an error in our thinking by enforcing PO limit of max 4 for DVD+R discs. PO is not the same as PIF, like I have explained above. We should enforce a maximum of 4 PIF (i.e. PI Unc.) / 1 ECC block. The PO rate is usually higher than PIF rate, because one PIF can be a failure of several bytes in one row. Each byte of failure in that row results in one additional PO.

So yes, I've read the specs that far, but not the level of the ECD/ECC algorithms themselves nor have I statistically modelled the distribution.

I'm more interested in stastitical correlation between PIF and PO, because it seems that most drives do not report PIF, but report PO (or vice versa).

Guess I should plot it myself, if only I had the time/skill...

regards,
halcyon


< Message edited by Halc -- 6/9/2004 2:02:56 AM >

(in reply to emperor)
Post #: 4
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/8/2004 8:05:37 AM   
emperor


Posts: 7210
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
Halc, sorry i have no more data about PIF/PO statistical correlation, i guess by using our future test results, you could make some assumptions.

(in reply to Halc)
Post #: 5
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/8/2004 10:42:00 AM   
Dolphinius_Rex


Posts: 3310
Joined: 9/14/2002
From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Status: offline
Although I may seem an unlikely source for this information

It was confirmed by a programer within LiteON that although the errors are referred to as PO, they are indeed PIF (on the mediatek chipset). He then clarified that the Mediatek chipset (as it stands I suppose) is incapable of testing for PO errors.


_____________________________

Canada; Leading the world in being just north of the U.S.A.

(in reply to emperor)
Post #: 6
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/8/2004 12:05:45 PM   
emperor


Posts: 7210
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
We already knew that Dolphy and said it most times that it cannot report PO errors..I just re-posted what KProbe author said.

(in reply to Dolphinius_Rex)
Post #: 7
RE: PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) - 6/9/2004 2:05:26 AM   
Halc

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 2/4/2002
From:
Status: offline
Thanks Dolph! I had mislabelled it in my second post and it's good to get a confirmation too.

I'm still worried about this 4 PO limit, which is IMHO mistaken/wrong. We should be limiting the number of PIF (i.e. rows that fail parity inner error correction).

Of course, as each PIF is always at least a single PO, this means that ( PO > PIF) always.

So limiting to 4 PO is actually too strict, but I guess it's better than having a too lax limit.

cheers,
halcyon

(in reply to emperor)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Optical Storage] >> CD, DVD, BD Drives >> Writing Quality >> PIF / PO error reporting (Mediatek and general) Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.031