Difference between revisions of "Talk:USB flash installation media"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(UNetbootin should be removed: re)
(Making an UEFI/BIOS ISO should be KISS: re (side notes))
(46 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Verifying the USB ==
 
 
Before and after having performed the dd onto the USB disk, check that the md5sums are correct. For example:
 
 
- $ md5sum archlinux-2008.06-core-x86_64.img && echo && cat md5sums.x86_64
 
 
The next command will give similar results, but will also let you confirm that the data was written correctly and can be read correctly:
 
- dd if=/dev/sdb count=661159 status=noxfer | md5sum && echo && cat md5sums.x86_64
 
 
--[[User:Zatricky|Zatricky]] 06:45, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 
 
== dd for Windows ==
 
 
There is also '''dd''' for Windows. I tried it and it works perfectly: [http://www.chrysocome.net/dd]
 
 
  dd if=file.img of=\\.\e:
 
 
where '''e:''' is your USB drive letter.
 
 
--[[User:Liquen|Liquen]] 14:55, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 
 
 
== About making the installation media without overwriting ==
 
== About making the installation media without overwriting ==
 
 
I'm not totally sure if I misunderstood something, but I had to change the path of the entries of the *.cfg files. For instance:
 
I'm not totally sure if I misunderstood something, but I had to change the path of the entries of the *.cfg files. For instance:
  
Line 42: Line 19:
  
 
Thanks !!
 
Thanks !!
 +
:I cannot find that this is still relevant to the article as it now exists. I am striking it out as it looks like it could be good to remove. [[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User talk:AdamT|talk]]) 10:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
::Just lunched from USB drive without UUID(don't have any idea why it didn't have one). Solution was to change label to appropriate in loader/entries/archiso-x86_64.conf. Not sure weither this should be added to article.
 +
--[[User:Versusvoid|Versusvoid]] ([[User talk:Versusvoid|talk]]) 16:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
::Versusvoid, I would love to adapt the article but I cannot follow your description above. Looking at that section, it may be out dated. If you are watching this please elaborate when you have time. Thanks, [[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User_talk:AdamT|Talk]]) 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::Ok. For some reason ubuntu did not see USB UUID. So ''blkid -o value -s UUID /dev/sdx1'' were returning empty string. The solution was:
 +
 +
:::''$ sed -i "s|label=ARCH_.*|label=$(blkid -o value -s LABEL /dev/sdx1)|" loader/entries/archiso-x86_64.conf''
 +
 +
:::in the USB mounting directory. --[[User:Versusvoid|Versusvoid]] ([[User talk:Versusvoid|talk]]) 08:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::It seems that sometimes you have to get the UUID by running the command as root. --[[User:Rongmu|Rongmu]] ([[User talk:Rongmu|talk]]) 11:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 +
::::Thank you for the follow-up. My semester started so I have not had much of a chance to help with the Arch Wiki of late. I am removing the strike from this section until I can take a closer look and update the article. [[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User_talk:AdamT|Talk]]) 02:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
== BIOS and UEFI bootable USB in Windows ==
  
== Recovering the USB drive afterwards ==
+
Maybe this applies also for Linux...
  
This didn't work for me:
+
In section 1.2, where one reads:
  
# dd count=1 bs=512 if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdx
+
X:\boot\syslinux\<br>
 +
/boot/syslinux
  
I tried this multiple times. No matter how I formatted the disk, 'devmon' always mounted '/dev/sdd' as /media/ARCH_whatever.
+
It should be
  
I finally just zeroed as much of the disk as I thought the ISO might have been written to.
+
X:'''\arch'''\boot\syslinux<br>
 +
'''/arch'''/boot/syslinux
  
# dd count=100 bs=4M if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdx; sync
+
At least with the ARCH_201311 iso...
  
That worked. I believe we need to zero MORE than just the initial 512 bytes, but I have no idea how much. Maybe 2048?
+
Cheers.<br>
 +
[[User:Jauch|Jauch]] ([[User talk:Jauch|talk]]) 16:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  
At any rate, put '; sync' in there somewhere.
 
  
This is what I did eventually, taking a tip from:
+
== Making an UEFI/BIOS ISO should be KISS ==
[http://www.patriotmemory.com/forums/showthread.php?3696-HOWTO-Increase-write-speed-by-aligning-FAT32]
+
Following up on the discussion in the [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=173559 the bbs], I disagree that [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:USB_Flash_Installation_Media&oldid=284705 this edit] should be kept as the first thing users see when hitting this page.  I based this opinion on my feeling that the instructions are too many steps and, arguably too vague.  Example, this method is 7 steps (depending on how you count) and requires that user read linked articles (i.e syslinux install and modifying master boot records).  In contrast, the dd method is simple (KISS principal) and is both [https://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/commit/?id=f19f6173c8650ebc43dc166ee2a2f3f92a753afe implemented] and [https://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/commit/?id=ce9c853292e0d37e3931634f43ce697ccd33ad11 documented] as pointed out by one of our developers in the aforementioned bbs thread.
  
# dd count=100 bs=4M if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdx; sync
+
I think we should at least start the article with the KISS method and this edit down the page. [[User:Graysky|Graysky]] ([[User talk:Graysky|talk]]) 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
# fdisk -H 224 -S 56 /dev/sdx
+
  
(new partition, primary, 1, 2048, whatever, type of partition, c (fat32 LBA), x, beginning data sector, 256, write)
+
: Well, I have been keeping an eye on this since the.ridikulus.rat's extensive edits on and after 2013-11-20. I have kept quiet because the maintainers and admins seemed to accept the changes. However, from the start, I disagreed along lines similar to what Graysky has mentioned above.
  
# mkfs.vfat -F 32 -n volume_label -s 32 -v /dev/sdx1; sync
+
: I did not, and do not, understand why the Arch Wiki should be recommending a specific method without any references or firm reasoning. Instead the.ridikulus.rat seemed to be prescribing a method that was believed was superior based on their own preferences. ''This method is slightly more complicated than writing the image directly with {{ic|dd}}, but it does keep the drive usable for data storage.''
  
See the link for more details on the beginning data sector.
+
: <s>Please note this quote from the [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1354844#p1354844 BBS thread] Graysky linked above (emphasis mine): ''It took me some time to read through the syslinux docs and other blog [sic] to understand the syslinux installation process under Windows, and '''I don't appreciate you simply removing the entire part that I thought out and typed for the sake of the community.'''''</s> I just realized I completely mistook what the.ridikulus.rat meant to say here. Please disregard.
  
* Um, zeroing out the first 512 bytes is fine for MBR-formatted drives. Were you using GPT? Because then you would need to zero out the first 512+512+16k, and the last 16k+512. See [[GPT]]. But assuming you used {{ic|dd}}, we're talking about MBR-formatted because the ISO contains a MBR (hybrid) partition table.--[[User:DSpider|DSpider]] ([[User talk:DSpider|talk]]) 06:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
+
: While I do think the technical information that the.ridikulus.rat provided was needed in general, and I had in fact [[Talk:Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Migrate_UEFI_Bootable_Media_to_USB_Flash_Installation_Media.3F|proposed something similar]] shortly before, the extensive reordering of the page and the subjective recommendations does not seem in keeping with the [[ArchWiki:About|ideals]] and [[Help:Editing|established processes]] of the Arch Wiki as I understand them.
  
== flush file system buffers after dd ==
+
: <s>Further, referencing the quote above, egos definitely seem to be coming into play in a place where they should not matter. The sake of the community is what matters here, not individual investments. See also [[The Arch Way]].</s>
  
I found that after using dd to write the data to my USB I had to wait for the file system to actually write it to my drive. (as dd completed and returned its stats)
+
: Moving forward, as of this writing, the changes that Teateawhy has been making seem to be in keeping with the practices put forth in the Arch Wiki's documentation while also mitigating the subjective recommendation that was put forth during the.ridikulus.rat's changes.
This could cause confusion, should we add 'sync' after the dd command on the artical?
+
  
== Rationale for block size ==
+
: As a fairly new contributor, one aspect I have not been able to determine from reading over the Arch Wiki's documentation is when and how to make recommendations. As such, and keeping an eye on the bigger picture here, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest something be added to [[Help:Style]] or elsewhere regarding when and how recommendations and suggestions are justified. There seems to be a willingness for some contributors to make claims without references or supporting statements. Similar to Wikipedia's "reference needed" template, a flag or at least cohesive policy may be warranted for the Arch Wiki and it may help prevent situations like this in the future! : )
  
Why specifically ''bs=4M'' in the [[USB_Installation_Media#Overwrite_the_USB_drive|example]]:
+
: Cheers all, [[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User_talk:AdamT|Talk]]) 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
[[USB_Installation_Media#Overwrite_the_USB_drive|# dd '''bs=4M''' if=/path/to/archlinux.iso of=/dev/sdx]]
+
[[User:NoobCp|NoobCp]] ([[User talk:NoobCp|talk]]) 11:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
+
  
:Because it speeds up the process, that's why. I guess somebody decided that one warning, two notes and a tip would be too rainbow-like. See [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=USB_Installation_Media&oldid=218405 this] older edit (which references [http://sprunge.us/SGIY this] script). I reduces the time it needs almost by half. --[[User:DSpider|DSpider]] ([[User talk:DSpider|talk]]) 12:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
+
=== Side notes ===
 +
I don't want to hijack the main discussion, but I'd like to answer a couple of AdamT's observations:
  
==UNetbootin should be removed==
+
* please do not assume that admins and maintainers can follow everything that happens on the wiki; if you have something to say about somebody else's edits just do it ;)
 +
* I'd be glad to add some guidelines about recommendations to the style guide; the problem is that it's still very subjective to distinguish between what is a ''justified'' recommendation and what is a ''personal'' recommendation... Technically The.ridikulus.rat did justify his suggestion. If you have an idea for the wording of an effective style guide, please propose it here or in [[Help talk:Style]], but I think that most of these cases will have to be solved in discussion pages like it's happened here.
  
I think UNetbootin should be removed. It was just added more information that basically tells you to use something else. This program is way too intrusive. It installs its own version of the bootloader, a crappy syslinux.cfg, and doesn't give a shit about labels. Unetbootin is totally NOT recommended for Arch Linux and it should be removed from the wiki. --[[User:DSpider|DSpider]] ([[User talk:DSpider|talk]]) 11:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
+
-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 01:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks. Good riddance! But, perhaps we should keep the warning? Or just refer them to this discussion page. --[[User:DSpider|DSpider]] ([[User talk:DSpider|talk]]) 06:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
+
:: This is not the first time UNetbootin info is added and then removed (sadly by me.). Search the history you will find the same topic show up long time ago. If it is broken, we'd better clearly tell  people it is broken. And it can prevent it from being recommended again. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 10:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
+
:::Yes, please don't take example from what [[User:Danielwallace]] did; content should never be removed without at least a valid explanation in the edit summary, and anyway, in this case UNetbootin must be mentioned, even only as an non-recommended, discouraged alternative in a Warning: following the philosophy of the ArchWiki and Arch Linux in general, no available option must be hidden to the users, who are the only ones who can choose what's best for themselves in the end. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 13:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
+
:::: Deletion reverted. Close. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 12:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
+
:::::Reopening as the section has been restored. My opinion is unchanged. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
+
::::::I'm sorry for re-opening the section but it was my first time that I wrote on this wiki. I know that UNetbooting overwrite the syslinux.cfg, infact my guide is to edit that file to permit the boot of the installation media. So I think you could remove the disclaimer. [[User:Mathias|Mathias]] ([[User talk:Mathias|talk]]) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::::Lol, silly me, I added the disclaimer back without re-reading the section just because I remembered this has been the cause of some edit warring in the past, sorry... Of course you're right, however I've merged the disclaimer into the introduction paragraph in order to try to prevent future disputes. Closed (again). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
+
::::::::It appears to me that there has been an increase in the number of new users attempting to use unetbootin (and failing) since this section was changed. I think this tool should be more strongly discuraged. There really is no reason to use it, even with the syslinux warning. I'd like to at least amplify the warning about using another tool, and ideally return the original warning from DSpider (Do Not Use UNETBOOTIN). [[User:2ManyDogs|2ManyDogs]] ([[User talk:2ManyDogs|talk]]) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::::::I admit it's been a while since I last tested UNetbootin: is the procedure described in the article working or not? In any case yes, please expand the warning about using another tool, specifying the reason ''why'' UNetbootin is worse. However let's not delete the section again, otherwise this cycle of deletions and restorations will never end... -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 11:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
+

Revision as of 01:34, 1 December 2013

About making the installation media without overwriting

I'm not totally sure if I misunderstood something, but I had to change the path of the entries of the *.cfg files. For instance:

INCLUDE boot/syslinux/archiso_sys.cfg

became:

INCLUDE syslinux/archiso_sys.cfg

It was the only way it worked with the unofficial ISO x86_64 image of march 13th, 2012. Looks like the syslinux command described in the page doesn't get the path as it should.

I edited all of the .cfg files, but probably only editing this ones should have been enough:

archiso.cfg archiso_head.cfg archiso_sys_inc.cfg

I hope it could be useful to somebody, because I spend some time with this (I even thought that was a problem with the hardware). I think it could be possible to make a simple script (or give some command lines) to patch the files once they are copied into the USB and run syslinux.

Thanks !!

I cannot find that this is still relevant to the article as it now exists. I am striking it out as it looks like it could be good to remove. AdamT (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just lunched from USB drive without UUID(don't have any idea why it didn't have one). Solution was to change label to appropriate in loader/entries/archiso-x86_64.conf. Not sure weither this should be added to article.

--Versusvoid (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Versusvoid, I would love to adapt the article but I cannot follow your description above. Looking at that section, it may be out dated. If you are watching this please elaborate when you have time. Thanks, AdamT (Talk) 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok. For some reason ubuntu did not see USB UUID. So blkid -o value -s UUID /dev/sdx1 were returning empty string. The solution was:
$ sed -i "s|label=ARCH_.*|label=$(blkid -o value -s LABEL /dev/sdx1)|" loader/entries/archiso-x86_64.conf
in the USB mounting directory. --Versusvoid (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that sometimes you have to get the UUID by running the command as root. --Rongmu (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the follow-up. My semester started so I have not had much of a chance to help with the Arch Wiki of late. I am removing the strike from this section until I can take a closer look and update the article. AdamT (Talk) 02:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

BIOS and UEFI bootable USB in Windows

Maybe this applies also for Linux...

In section 1.2, where one reads:

X:\boot\syslinux\
/boot/syslinux

It should be

X:\arch\boot\syslinux
/arch/boot/syslinux

At least with the ARCH_201311 iso...

Cheers.
Jauch (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Making an UEFI/BIOS ISO should be KISS

Following up on the discussion in the the bbs, I disagree that this edit should be kept as the first thing users see when hitting this page. I based this opinion on my feeling that the instructions are too many steps and, arguably too vague. Example, this method is 7 steps (depending on how you count) and requires that user read linked articles (i.e syslinux install and modifying master boot records). In contrast, the dd method is simple (KISS principal) and is both implemented and documented as pointed out by one of our developers in the aforementioned bbs thread.

I think we should at least start the article with the KISS method and this edit down the page. Graysky (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have been keeping an eye on this since the.ridikulus.rat's extensive edits on and after 2013-11-20. I have kept quiet because the maintainers and admins seemed to accept the changes. However, from the start, I disagreed along lines similar to what Graysky has mentioned above.
I did not, and do not, understand why the Arch Wiki should be recommending a specific method without any references or firm reasoning. Instead the.ridikulus.rat seemed to be prescribing a method that was believed was superior based on their own preferences. This method is slightly more complicated than writing the image directly with dd, but it does keep the drive usable for data storage.
Please note this quote from the BBS thread Graysky linked above (emphasis mine): It took me some time to read through the syslinux docs and other blog [sic] to understand the syslinux installation process under Windows, and I don't appreciate you simply removing the entire part that I thought out and typed for the sake of the community. I just realized I completely mistook what the.ridikulus.rat meant to say here. Please disregard.
While I do think the technical information that the.ridikulus.rat provided was needed in general, and I had in fact proposed something similar shortly before, the extensive reordering of the page and the subjective recommendations does not seem in keeping with the ideals and established processes of the Arch Wiki as I understand them.
Further, referencing the quote above, egos definitely seem to be coming into play in a place where they should not matter. The sake of the community is what matters here, not individual investments. See also The Arch Way.
Moving forward, as of this writing, the changes that Teateawhy has been making seem to be in keeping with the practices put forth in the Arch Wiki's documentation while also mitigating the subjective recommendation that was put forth during the.ridikulus.rat's changes.
As a fairly new contributor, one aspect I have not been able to determine from reading over the Arch Wiki's documentation is when and how to make recommendations. As such, and keeping an eye on the bigger picture here, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest something be added to Help:Style or elsewhere regarding when and how recommendations and suggestions are justified. There seems to be a willingness for some contributors to make claims without references or supporting statements. Similar to Wikipedia's "reference needed" template, a flag or at least cohesive policy may be warranted for the Arch Wiki and it may help prevent situations like this in the future! : )
Cheers all, AdamT (Talk) 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Side notes

I don't want to hijack the main discussion, but I'd like to answer a couple of AdamT's observations:

  • please do not assume that admins and maintainers can follow everything that happens on the wiki; if you have something to say about somebody else's edits just do it ;)
  • I'd be glad to add some guidelines about recommendations to the style guide; the problem is that it's still very subjective to distinguish between what is a justified recommendation and what is a personal recommendation... Technically The.ridikulus.rat did justify his suggestion. If you have an idea for the wording of an effective style guide, please propose it here or in Help talk:Style, but I think that most of these cases will have to be solved in discussion pages like it's happened here.

-- Kynikos (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)