Hello,
i feel sorry because i have made you waste your time.
I will spare you details, in fact one of the CD drive
was engaged in a 'slow dying' process for several
month now. I already have had this kind of progressive
crap with a nic card, but obviously i discovered it a
little bit too late.
To summarize:
- it was already clear that the md5sum from SL305 /
i386 are correct on SL sites
- the SL305 discs perfectly support the "media check"
feature during the install process, and pass the test
with success
- this also is true for my old SL4.0 disc ( initialy
reported false by the slow dying CD drive ). I do not
have the SL304 disc anymore, but i now am very
confident they were in fact OK
- not surprisingly, RH9 first disc autocheck was
reported false by the bad hardware, and OK by the good
CD drive
- just to had to happiness, SL305 and SL4.0 install
without a glitch on a P4P800 with both IDE and SATA
drives ( a little exploit, believe it ). Some tricks
for the owners of this motherboard:
1/ for IDE conf, stay on: enhanced mode / SATA ( this
is not true if you are using an old Ms system )
2/ keep the number of usb port on 8, do not try
'highspeed' and stay on 'fullspeed'. Anyway the bios
hangs on those points, and your only option will be to
clear the CMOS
3/ W2K reports nothing during the install, but if
Linux installer ( 2.4 or 2.6 kernel ) is going on a
race for acquiring a mysterious IRQ18, or swing
between trying to acquire IRQ11 and trying to put the
CD drive on 'sleeping mode': try another CD/DVD drive,
you will spare your time
4/ the inversion of harddisks order in Grub advanced
install option does _not_ work ( the install will fail
during the post install process ), you _must_ invert
the order of the harddisks in BIOS before installing (
and then no need to use the Grub option ). That said,
this is working great for dual booting
Will they marry, have a lot of children and live a
long and happy life, is clearly beyond the topic ;-)
So back to the main thing: thank you everybody for
your answers, very usefull
--- hilare <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Troy,
>
>
> Very well seen: i am currently downloading ( only
> the
> first ) RH9 CD from Redhat. I will report you the
> result.
>
>
> To answer to your ""What classifies your cd's
> as'certified'? Which test did you run on them?"":
>
> nothing except the manufacturer's, TDK, "certified
> for" mention... and the fact that i am using this
> brand, and others, for years without _any_ problem.
>
> Just let me write how i burn my (precious) datas
> _and_
> operating system CD ( i am not so carefull with
> softwares ):
>
> 1/ shut down any overclocking, even for the graphic
> card, and return to nominal speeds and voltages.
>
> 2/ shut down network interfaces, services,
> softwares.
>
> 3/ flag the iso as 'read only'
>
> 4/ md5sum check
>
> 5/ mount the iso and scan against virus
>
> 6/ unmount
>
> 6.a/ play guitar while the computer is burning CD
>
> 7/ check for the cd-burner software report
> 7.a) buffer overrun OK
> 7.b) burning OK
> 7.c) comparaison iso / burned ( nero & K3b ) OK
>
> 7/ eject the disc and re-insert it on the second CD
> player ( in fact a DVD player )
>
> 8/ mount the iso image and check via windiff/diff
> that
> the content is equal to the content of the CD
> disc...
>
> 9/ ...and check for no IO errors in the system log
>
> 10/ read randomly some files
>
>
> I think this is rather 'paranoid', but i allow
> myself
> to say that my CD are _perfectly_ burned.
>
>
> So, that is why i am surprised with the failure of
> the
> CD verification feature during the install.
>
> An explanation may be related to my motherboard (
> asus
> P4P800 ) which already had a problem with Fedora
> Core
> ( 2 or 3, i don't remember ): the install procedure
> destroyed the master boot record. Clearly this
> motherboard may have some problem with a Linux
> release
> not perfect regarding the IO bios section.
>
> I think i also will download centos to verify this
> point, and i will report you the results.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > hilare wrote:
> > > Thank you, Connie and Troy, for answering so
> fast.
> > I
> > > am currently downloading the first iso image to
> > solve
> > > my md5sum unfortunate experience.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding the second point ( no problem with
> CDrom
> > > capabalities up to 800Mo write/read, either with
> > > W2K/Nero or various SL/Xcdroast/K3b. Currently i
> > am
> > > using 700Mo certified - TDK - CDroms ):
> > >
> >
> > What classifies your cd's as 'certified'? Which
> > test did you run on them?
> >
> > > 1/ i am aware that the autocheck disk is an
> option
> > (
> > > but a strong one: the only way to skip it is to
> > press
> > > a very well named button ""skip CD
> verification"",
> > > which is more than 'incentive' regarding laws
> and
> > > professional responsibility )
> > >
> > > 2/ i am sure this is a good feature ( i used it
> > since
> > > RH9 from ftp.redhat.com )
> > >
> > > 3/ but this never had reported OK with SL for me
> (
> > RH9
> > > always was OK, not on the same hardware than SL,
> > but i
> > > do not have this hardware anymore, nor i have
> the
> > RH9
> > > CD ). Do you mean that you, or anybody, had
> > success
> > > with it ?
> > >
> >
> > Yes
> > I knew I had already tested all of the 3.0.4 i386
> > CD's, but I have
> > reburned another batch, and the 4.0's. Every one
> of
> > 3.0.5 and 4.0 i386
> > CD's have passed that test.
> >
> > I don't know what else to say.
> >
> > > Anyway, i am ready to provide you any
> information
> > if
> > > you need them, in order to help you on this
> topic.
> > >
> > > In particular, you guess that i am ready to burn
> > and
> > > install SL305/i386 32bits (from W2K/Nero), and
> > very
> > > soon SL4.1 or 4.rolling (from SL305/K3b), so, if
> > you
> > > want to ask me anything for a testing purpose,
> > feel
> > > free to do so, i will spent the needed time on
> it.
> > I
> > > don't know if this is related, but i never had
> > > obtained the original md5sum from an iso burned
> (
> > and
> > > previously checked md5sum ok ), and then
> > re-extracted
> > > as an image. Maybe is this an other way to say
> > what
> > > Troy stated as ""Not all CD media is created
> > equal""
> > > ?, but this is not explaining why RH9 CD
> > verification
> > > was ok and SL never (for me).
> > >
> >
> > You could try burning the RH9 cd's, on the same
> > media, in the same way,
> > and see if they all pass the test. That's the
> only
> > test I can think of.
> >
> > Troy
> > --
> > __________________________________________________
> > Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468
> > Fermilab ComputingDivision/CSS CSI Group
> > __________________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
|
