Hi,
kAt wrote:
> I am trying to find out
> what firmware works with this medium and what it really does.
It's a little computer which implements USB bus operation, and a subset
of the SCSI command protocol, and also manages the mapping from logical
addresses (LBA) to physical addresses.
What it d
Thomas Schmitt:
> Hi,
>
> kAt wrote:
>> All I can say is that I feel honored that some useful code was produced
>> with my problem statement as an inspiration.
>
> Whether it's useful will still have to turn out. :)
> Up to now it has one happy user.
I think being able to use a thumb-stick as a
On 2017-03-28, kAt wrote:
> All I can say is that I feel honored that some useful code was produced
> with my problem statement as an inspiration.
That's like some befuddled bumpkin down in North Carolina saying he's
proud to find a portrait of himself in one of Thomas Wolfe's books.
Actually i
Hi,
now i have spoiled the wet run messages. "Wrote" rather than "Removed"
in the messages agout APM and GPT. Gr.
New source:
http://scdbackup.webframe.org/make_isombr_part.c
MD5 34aa900801f65955a61cebf0280eeb3b
Compile by
cc -g -Wall -o make_isombr_part make_isombr_part.c
New amd6
Hi,
i adopted the idea of a dry run for educational purposes.
It demonstrates in detail what make_isombr_part would do to the
storage device.
With debian-8.7.1-i386-xfce-CD-1.iso on /dev/sdc:
-
$ ./make_isombr_part /dev/sdc a
Hi,
isongbird wrote:
> also, consider that bugs do happen and sometimes
> a dry run switch will discover them before it does
> the actual write to the device.
The code still contains a conditional part which i used with the
initial tests.
If you change
/* # def ine Make_isombr_part_dummY yes
Hi,
kAt wrote:
> All I can say is that I feel honored that some useful code was produced
> with my problem statement as an inspiration.
Whether it's useful will still have to turn out. :)
Up to now it has one happy user.
I am pondering about the partition table mess since quite a while.
On the o
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> songbird wrote:
>> always give an option to do a dry run without any actual changes
>> being made
>
> But what difference would that make ?
just me and a preference to err on the side
of caution when dealing with devices that might
alter a very basic thing.
> If the pr
kAt wrote:
> All I can say is that I feel honored that some useful code was produced
> with my problem statement as an inspiration.
> I am doing research on the topic trying to learn all that feels like a
> huge gap of how disks and data relate.
>
> Have a nice day Thomas
it is very useful to th
All I can say is that I feel honored that some useful code was produced
with my problem statement as an inspiration.
I am doing research on the topic trying to learn all that feels like a
huge gap of how disks and data relate.
Have a nice day Thomas
kAt
Thomas Schmitt:
> Hi,
>
> i wrote a small
Hi,
songbird wrote:
> always give an option to do a dry run without any actual changes
> being made
But what difference would that make ?
If the program thinks it's not ok, then it will refuse.
If it thinks it's ok, then shall the user refrain nevertheless ?
Of course it's safer to know what is
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
...
>
>
> See a test run with rescatux ISO on /dev/sdc (any current Debian i386
> or amd64 ISO would be suitable, too).
>
> Still less dangerous than manipulating /dev files as superuser is
> to give the
Hi,
i wrote:
> > One may well try to manage the stick by a partition editor.
Richard Owlett wrote:
> Appropriate search terms that would lead to learning "howto"?
"linux"-or-"yourdesktop" together with "partition editor".
The reason to start this thread was about "gparted". We saw output of
"f
On 03/28/2017 09:20 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
Richard Owlett wrote:
/dev/sdb3 1140736 15130623 13989888 6.7G 83 Linux
For the records (as Richard obviously knew it already):
If you believe that line, would you like to by a Brooklyn Bridge?
It was legitimately for sale in late 196
Hi,
Richard Owlett wrote:
> /dev/sdb3 1140736 15130623 13989888 6.7G 83 Linux
For the records (as Richard obviously knew it already):
After the run of make_isombr_part, the new partition has no
filesystem.
The commands mkfs or mkdosfs would be the next step, or some GUI tool
for managing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:41:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 07:17 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >I'd guess there's a difference between Thomas's processor architecture
> >and yours. [snip]
>
> Recompiled for my archit
On 03/28/2017 07:17 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[snip]
I'd guess there's a difference between Thomas's processor architecture
and yours. [snip]
Recompiled for my architecture successfully.
Did a successful minimal install from my modified flash drive.
Operator error or other?
It's always
On 03/28/2017 07:16 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
[snip]
To build your own binary, do in the directory where you have the
file make_isombr_part.c :
cc -g -Wall -o make_isombr_part make_isombr_part.c
This command should end quickly without any messages.
If messages appear, then please show them.
On 03/28/2017 07:16 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
Richard Owlett wrote:
I am running Debian 8.6.0 with MATE desktop.
...
bash: /home/richard/Downloads/make_isombr_part: cannot execute binary file:
Exec format error
Can it be your system is equipped with Debian for architecture i386 ?
Yepp ;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:16:24PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
[...]
> http://scdbackup.webframe.org/make_isombr_part.c
Yummy source. Now we're talking :-)
(trapped at work ATM. But I'll sure look into that)
regards
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNAT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:53:08AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 05:10 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >It would be interesting to see how various partition editors react on
> >this state of the USB stick. Can they reduce the s
Hi,
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I am running Debian 8.6.0 with MATE desktop.
> ...
> bash: /home/richard/Downloads/make_isombr_part: cannot execute binary file:
> Exec format error
Can it be your system is equipped with Debian for architecture i386 ?
I forgot to mention that my system is amd64.
> O
On 03/28/2017 05:10 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
[snip]
It would be interesting to see how various partition editors react on
this state of the USB stick. Can they reduce the size of partition 3 ?
Can they remove partition 3 and add on new one ?
That looked interesting. As I had a flash drive wi
Hi,
i wrote a small program which shall make a USB stick with isohybrid ISO
more digestible for partition editors by removing all partition tables
except MBR partitions.
It then creates a new partition in the first MBR partition slot which
is found with block count 0.
usage: ./make_isombr_part
Le 27/03/2017 à 20:11, David Christensen a écrit :
For example, here is an ADATA 4 marketing-GB USB flash drive:
(...)
Burning 10 MB using 'bs=1M':
2017-03-27 11:01:23 root@jesse ~
# time dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sdb seek=3000 count=10 bs=1M && sync
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
10485760
Hi,
i wrote:
> > - APM partition table with block size 2048 (look here for a suspect !)
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> For whatever reason, libarted-based tools choose to consider that bogus
> Apple partition table.
> Bottom line : libparted-based tools do not handle ISO-hybrid images
> correctly. Do n
Le 27/03/2017 à 14:11, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
- APM partition table with block size 2048 (look here for a suspect !)
Right.
For whatever reason, libarted-based tools choose to consider that bogus
Apple partition table. Unlike fdisk, you cannot force it to use another
format.
Bottom line
On 03/27/2017 05:38 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
... the bs= option in dd. All that does is make the dd command run a
tiny bit faster or slower.
As I understand it, writes smaller than a flash page size cause the
flash drive firmware to fetch or erase an available page of flash,
combine the unmo
On 03/27/2017 04:45 AM, kAt wrote:
David Christensen:
Understand that many memstick images change once they have been
booted, so you must checksum them immediately after burning.
(Thankfully, debian-8.7.1-i386-xfce-CD-1.iso doesn't, so I can verify
my USB flash drive at any time.)
I have done
Hi,
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> If the disk-image came
> from a 4 GB disk, and you write it onto an 8 GB disk, then the 8 GB
> disk will *believe* that it is a 4 GB disk, because it has the metadata
> from a 4 GB disk.
The device size is not determined by the image data which get written to it.
I assu
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:45:00AM +, kAt wrote:
> Yes, all this was done, the image on the stick is fine and functional!
> I did not say there was a problem with it, but the rest of the unused
> space ob the disk/mem-stick
When you write a disk-image onto a "disk" (in this case, a USB mass
st
Hi,
my hand made partition 3 fell victim to the deceptions of nested
partitions. It starts inside the ISO after the end of partition 2.
It should of course start after the end of partition 1.
So this is not the right start of partition 3:
> Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Typ
On Monday, March 27, 2017 07:45:00 AM kAt wrote:
> Again the question is not so much at the vendor's magic system but why
> would a 0.6G image rent the rest of the disk useless for copying stuff
> in and out, which I have done with many live systems.
To me this is not an unexpected result. I don'
Hi,
kAt wrote:
> >> Disk /dev/sdb: 7.2 GiB, 7751073792 bytes, 15138816 sectors
> [...]
> I suppose this is normal for an 8Gb usb stick. 249Mb go to firmware that
> operates the stick
Hardly. Unless it is an operating-system-on-a-stick.
The habit on the storage sector is to count by SI compli
David Christensen:
> uname -a
>Always start a new thread with these:
2017-03-26 19:50:42 dpchrist@jesse ~
$ cat /etc/debian_version
9.0
$ uname -a
Linux debian9 4.9.0-2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.13-1 (2017-02-27) x86_64
GNU/Linux
>Also, please post the URL for image.iso/Rescatux 4.0beta.
http://ww
Thomas Schmitt:
> Hi,
>
> kAt wrote:
>>> /sbin/fdisk -l /dev/sdb
>> Disk /dev/sdb: 7.2 GiB, 7751073792 bytes, 15138816 sectors
>
> Is this about the correct size of the stick ?
I suppose this is normal for an 8Gb usb stick. 249Mb go to firmware that
operates the stick I wouldn't know.
>> U
Thomas Schmitt:
> Hi,
>
> kAt wrote:
>>> /sbin/fdisk -l /dev/sdb
>> Disk /dev/sdb: 7.2 GiB, 7751073792 bytes, 15138816 sectors
>
> Is this about the correct size of the stick ?
I suppose this is normal for an 8Gb usb stick. 249Mb go to firmware that
operates the stick I wouldn't know.
>> Uni
On 03/26/2017 10:18 AM, kAt wrote:
dd if=/media/--/image.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=4M; sync
the image works but the format of the drive seems false gparted when
starting says that linux thinks it is a 256k block and not the 4m it
indicates. It shows on an 8G drive an empty space of 28G
Is it the
Hi,
kAt wrote:
> > /sbin/fdisk -l /dev/sdb
> Disk /dev/sdb: 7.2 GiB, 7751073792 bytes, 15138816 sectors
Is this about the correct size of the stick ?
> Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 byt
Hi,
kAt wrote:
> dd if=/media/--/image.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=4M; sync
> the image works but the format of the drive seems false
The dd option "bs=" has no influence on the block size or other
drive properties as perceived by a partition editor.
> gparted when starting says that linux thinks it
kAt:
> dd if=/media/--/image.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=4M; sync
>
> the image works but the format of the drive seems false
> gparted when starting says that linux thinks it is a 256k block and not
> the 4m it indicates. It shows on an 8G drive an empty space of 28G
>
> Is it the option of bs=4M
On 03/26/2017 12:18 PM, kAt wrote:
dd if=/media/--/image.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=4M; sync
the image works but the format of the drive seems false
gparted when starting says that linux thinks it is a 256k block and not
the 4m it indicates. It shows on an 8G drive an empty space of 28G
Is it the
"dd ... bs=4M" doesn't change the block size of the underlying device.
All it does is say that dd should copy in chunks of 4Mb. If the buffer
size is bigger, then dd spends more time copying and less time telling
the kernel to copy.
On 26/03/17 18:18, kAt wrote:
> dd if=/media/--/image.iso of
dd if=/media/--/image.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=4M; sync
the image works but the format of the drive seems false
gparted when starting says that linux thinks it is a 256k block and not
the 4m it indicates. It shows on an 8G drive an empty space of 28G
Is it the option of bs=4M that creates this pro
44 matches
Mail list logo
