Search Results for 'boot from iso'

[Member melodie]

Hello fatmac,
thanks for the pointers. However before posting I did indeed do the research and I posted to his same thread you are pointing me to. The screenshots of Manyroads edition look good, the ISO is too large, and I’m not sure his vision of an antiX Openbox is the same as the one which lead to make it easy to use for everyone.

About the weight : if an ISO is less or max 700MB it can allow to be burned to CD and also it will fit more easily in the RAM once the squashfs will be unsquashed during the boot, thus avoiding freezes.

Many so called light distros are overweight and can just not finish the boot because of this issue. (ie: 3.5 GB that fit in a 1.3 GB ISO, or even in smaller ISO’s thanks to the advanced compression options available).

I will be glad to get more answers about the ways to create antiX respins. 🙂

[Moderator BobC]

The machines that can’t run Manjaro are the Pentium III machines due to video and total slowness if video is replaced.

The other ones that fail are my I7’s, which all fail, because they can’t boot the flashdrive at all. The solution I found was to copy the iso’s to the HD and then edit in a loopback boot into another OS’s grub boot.

Not many normal folks will get that far successfully, and will just try another distro. That problem is now 9 months old at least that I saw.

[Moderator BobC]

I’m no expert, but I think if you are running it live there should be an option on the Live tab of the Control Centre.

If that won’t do it, you can create an ISO snapshot on the Maintenance tab, and then burn a new Live USB on the Disks tab. When It boots, turn Persistence on, and make them bigger this time.

[Anonymous]

Dear friends,

you should keep in mind that you can benchmark flash memory cells to death!

The comparison USB-Stick –> USB2/3 ports –> boot times of the machine do not make sense to me. This test may look quite different at the next start.

Stay with built-in ssd’s. And, the most accurate it does dd.

https://wiki.siduction.de/index.php?title=Solid_State_Disks_(SSDs)_unter_Linux_optimal_nutzen#Eine_Auswahl_an_Benchmarks

[Member rayluo]

Thanks for all the useful information in this thread! That “hdparm -t –direct /dev/sdX” is a trick that I did not know before. Now I’ll have some fun time to play with my a bunch of flashdisks and well as different harddisks and SSDs on my different machines. 🙂

BobC wrote:

… it took almost a minute to burn the ISO instead of 15 seconds.

Just saying, “the time needed to burn an ISO” is IMHO less a useful as a “real-world” indicator. I mean, we are supposed to only burn an ISO occasionally but then use that finished flashdisk to power our daily workload again and again. So I personally would care more about the time needed to boot from such a flashdisk (as I use LiveUSB exclusively). That being said, my same old flashdisk boots within 30 seconds on my one machine but noticeably longer on another one, despite they both have USB 2.0 ports, so it seems not just about the usb port and the flashdisk.

UPDATED with real numbers:

* I have a Thinkpad X60 producted at 2006, and a Dell Inspiron 1525 producted at 2008. Both have USB 2.0 ports according to their specs.
* I use the same unbranded, outdated 2GB flashdisk. On both machines, “sudo hdpram -t /dev/sdb”, with or without –direct, gives me roughly 13 MB/second.(By the way, I’ve been trying to see how small/low-end flashdisk I can use to get antiX liveUSB running, and 2GB is the minimum because the ISO file itself is slightly larger than 1GB).
* On Thinkpad X60, it took 36 seconds from pressing ENTER in boot menu (using default boot, without any persistence), to Conky shows up.
* On Dell Inspiron 1525, it took 74 seconds, roughly twice as long.

So I guess I’ve just demonstrated:

1. How unreliable to use so-called boot time to measure the flash disk speed. I might have to take back my words above. LOL
2. How the disk speed alone (in this case, the two samples are exactly the same) could be less a factor to the real-world use case such as boot time. Admittedly, this is very counter-intuitive even to my own believing.

The bottom line? Once they boot up, I feel no difference in my usual daily workload. And I totally enjoy carrying merely a dispensable flashdisk around, and still have my favorite and familiar working environment with me anywhere. (In fact, I lost one last week in my local library, though I found it back days later.) 🙂

Well, hello there ya’ll. I’m new to using or trying to use AntiX, but have been using Linux since early 90’s.
Currently I’m attempting to install AntiX 17.4.1 on a salvaged Compaq ENS Deskpro 866Mhz CPU wiht 133Mhz frontside bus box with the RAM maxed out at 512MB. The old Compaq uses the Intel onboard graphics chip thus far refuses to boot into anything other than a black screen with AntiX. The checksums for the ISO image were verified. ISO was burned at relatively low speed. The Compaq is running Lubuntu 11.10 on a Seagate 20GB PATA 7200rpm that passed as many surface tests as I threw at it. which I am not all that fond of due to its’ pretty limited selection of components. I have booted and run Puppy Linux in RAM (Slacko 5.7.2) without problems. I have another ENS 812e Deskpro that I setup years ago that runs Unbuntu 10.04 without problems other than the age of the system.
Tried booting with nomodeset selected, acpi-off with the result of black screen. Tried fail safe and safe video also with black screen result. The fact that the hardware is circa 2001 and does not support PAE suggests that the most modern versions of most distros are unlikely to work. Any suggestions as to where to get a i386 Non-PAE version of AntiX? Or should I just go ahead and tote this old beast to the recycling center?

Regards and Thankye Kindly,
Newfie

[Member rej]

Sorry Dave – hope I can clarify here. Please let me know, if not.

So, laptop -> usb #1 -> live usb instance on usb#2?

Yes.

what was the partition type on the first usb?

what was used to copy (import/export) the files from the install to usb#1 and then to the live usb?

GParted – “msdos” partiton table. Fat32.

USB #1 -Used an empty unpartitioned 32gb Kingston DataTraveler via “cut & paste” – to transfer the 2 existing text files from my documents in antiX 17.

How was the usb mounted?

Not sure what this means -Plugged into USB port – AntiX automatically mounts as far as I know.

Bootable USBs for Betas – 16gb Sandisk Cruiser, 32gb Sandisk Dial, 64gb Kingston DataTraveler

– no special partitioning – just let the antiX USB-maker do it with directly downloaded ISO Beta files from Sourceforge.

====================
Opened an installed, running, fully configured antiX 17 on a laptop.

Plugged an empty 32gb Kingston DataTraveler flashdrive into a USB port on the laptop.

Took 2 random existing files, created with Leafpad as text documents and have permissions as “read and write” and “cut and pasted” them on the empty Kingston flashdrive.

Shut down laptop and plugged in the Beta 3 bootable USB live install media and booted.

Then plugged in the other USB flashdrive and transferred [cut & paste] those 2 Leafpad text files to live Beta 3 install media Home/documents.

These two files open immediately in Rox filer as “executable” permissions in the “USB live Beta” 3 install media “Home/documents”, even though they actually originated in my antiX 17 HD installation as “read and write” only.

Now, take these 2 Leafpad text files (now considered executable by Rox), cut & paste them back onto the empty 32 GB Kingston DataTraveler USB flashdrive, bring them back to my antiX 17 installation on the hard drive and they are immediately again recognized as normal “read and write” text files. The files’ permissions were never actually changed, except for the period they were in Rox.
—————————–
When doing comparative testing, I used Debian 10 “Buster” install media (live bootable USB flashdrive) and performed the same test – they opened as normal “read & write” text files.

I installed Debian 10 “Buster” on SSD on that same laptop and configured it with the same applications and settings in antiX – to replicate. The imported text files are recognized as “read & write”.

Same result with MX test – “read & write” only.
————–
I made new Beta bootable USB install media to rule out something having gone awry with the first install media (created in antiX 17 on the laptop where the 2 files were lifted from).

Used the install media to try to find out where this started to happen – and there it was on Beta 2,3, Full and Base version, bootable USB install media, yet not in Deb10, antiX 17 or MX. Tried this same testing on different brand laptops some newer, some older models to rule out hardware, even though antiX and MX are on every one of my computers and run as expected.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by rej.

First thing to do is found your usb drive with sudo fdisk -l

As you see from the below picture my usb is sdc (only use the root of usb not sdc1 2).

[/url]

Find where where your iso is stored say it is my Download folder.

The command would be sudo dd if=/home/koo/Downloads/antiX.iso of=/dev/sdc (press enter)

After you press enter then enter your password the usb will be formatted then the iso is written this will take a while.

You should now have a bootable install on your usb drive..

[Moderator BobC]

So, did you actually need over 4 gb or just figuring you might want it later?

A thought might be set it for 4 gb, install things some at a time, keeping an eye on available space between installs of programs, and if it starts getting tight, burn a new iso (via ISO Snapshot from Maintenance tab of Control Centre), which will incorporate all your rootfs changes, and then make yourself a new Live USB from the disks tab, and reboot off it and create a fresh 4 gb of rootfs on that flashdrive.

Just thinking aloud. I’ve done that before, but not recently, and not for that purpose, so be safe not sorry.

[Member eugen-b]

* The default IceWM theme has very pixelated “antiX” label on the main menu button.
* I still cannot mount a btrfs partition as reported before (https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-19-b2-full-64-and-32-bit-available/page/2/#post-24484)

demo@antix1:~
$ lsblk -f
NAME   FSTYPE  LABEL      UUID                                 FSAVAIL FSUSE% MOUNTPOINT
loop0  iso9660 antiX-Live 2019-08-16-20-26-49-00                              /live/iso-f
loop1  squashf                                                                /live/linux
sda                                                                           
├─sda1 vfat               7550-DABB                                           
├─sda2 ext2    boot       302ae0b1-b913-471b-a1ab-3bb4575b4d00                
├─sda3 btrfs              bcfa59e6-2132-48c0-8211-5bceec55c2e2                
└─sda4 ext2    boot32     14a7a0b3-a461-40d0-8c68-405ce2ed2eb2                
sdb                                                                           
├─sdb1 btrfs              da8126cb-6220-4616-b507-3aec0d6e4e96                
├─sdb2 swap    swap       e487a4eb-8a7f-4196-896e-10ca767c4269                [SWAP]
├─sdb3 vfat               5187-07C6                                           
└─sdb6 xfs     DataHDD    bb0e217e-dc93-486c-93f8-c5d73dcf7c4d                /live/iso-d
sdc                                                                           
├─sdc1                                                                        
├─sdc2 ext2               bd30fb1c-2107-4489-98df-7d68a02a148b                
└─sdc3 btrfs              bcfa59e6-2132-48c0-8211-5bceec55c2e2                
demo@antix1:~
$ sudo mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
mount: /mnt: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda3, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.
demo@antix1:~
$ sudo mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt
mount: /mnt: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb1, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.

I’m able to mount an XFS partititon.
I will try if another antiX kernel allows to mount a btrfs partition.

[Member ex_Koo]

@manyroads I installed Void awhile ago only thing wrong was dual booting gave me trouble..Void worked well and the WM and command stuff was pretty up to date. Not for me.

ArchLabs would a be a great choice awesome community too and Arch lives happy with dual booing plus they have a command line installer keeps the GUIs at bay.
Download I just did. archlabs-2019.01.20.iso 2019-01-21 638.6 MB

ArcoLinux looks tempting too has so many iso versions this guy covers the lot.

ArcoLinuxB iso’s Awesome , Bspwm , Budgie , Cinnamon , Deepin , Gnome , Openbox , i3 , Mate , Plasma , Qtile , Xfce , Xmonad.

systemd has never given me any trouble what so ever with Debian-10 one awesome system sense buster come along..

[Forum Admin rokytnji]

I have created Antix LiveUSB (latest release – antiX-17.4.1_x64-full.iso).
I was able to boot AntiX Live USB just once on my old old PC (MSI 945P Neo3) and then after reboot I get an error during boot process: “Could not find file antiX/linuxfs”
I have mounted USB dongle under my regular PC and I can clearly see the file DOES exist.
Moreover, I have tried it on modern PC: DELL Optiplex 780 and it works there…
What is wrong then? Any suggestions?

after looking at your screenshots. NO usb device found by pen drive but bios sees it to boot up is a new one on me.
I’d try another pendrive and download new iso with terminal and wget -c command, and md5sum my iso before troubleshooting further.
I am not even sure MSI laptop is nt at fault yet either.
Strange stuff. I’ll be watching.

Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.

Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

[Member ile]

Hello anticapitalista
19.b2_64 install target usb number three usb2-16G. attempts with use entire device.
This one failed many times. Single partition ext2 it installed , but no boot. It made me question had the correct target for MBR been selected. maybe my mistake.
Many more failures, same thing twice not working, then single partition ext4 it installs. No boot.
Many failed attempts using the fresh b2 live media described. fail. using the dd media described. failures. recreated live with rufus as iso [not dd] failures. recreated using live-usb-maker not setting persistence this time. failures.
Done. Failed. no success with usb third.

19.b2_64 install target number four usb2-8G.
using installer the dd one.
Format single partition ext2 used custom noswap (only 7G drive here) pointing to the one partition.
Installed. success. It boots.
The partition scheme is /sda1 6.24ext4 and /sda2 1.0fat32 and 31.72M unallocated.
The sda2 1.0fat32 information says Status: Mounted on /media/sdb2
There is no /sdb
Works, but flawed, then.

[Member ile]

Hello anticapitalista
You asked “tried to install (not frugal) beta2 to a usb device?”

Yes. got one. , but now I know why You asked. , because of many failures.
christophe had 32bit success with the cli installer, so I stuck with the antix-installer-gui for trials.
it was not a clean target; it had a mx install, not live, install on it. usb2 16G.
A antix-installer update was anticipated so started off with a fresh antix19.b2_x64-full live usb with persistence. No upgrade of the installer was necessary. it had 1.0.9 present. Noticed a cli upgrade that i did not put on. no upgrades done on the fresh live b2_x64 iso.
Began trials of installs each time selecting entire device option. failed. it would each time create partitions and stop at formatting them. 1%, 2%, 3%.
Tried a live installer that was created with dd. no different. installs to entire device failed. went back to the persistent live usb to continue trials.
At each failure I would open gparted and try to create a single partition formatted ext2 by erasing the ext4/12.1G and erasing swap/2G failed partitions. Then tried different varied formats of the single partition. ext4. no . then varied, different formats of the two partitions. fails. Selected custom partitions pointing at the partitions for root and swap failed.
I removed the package antix-goodies, uninstall. trial install not to entire, but selected the single 14.1 partition and “noswap.” IT Installed. it booted. the partition scheme was 12.1G ext4 plus 2.0Gext4; the 2.0G contained the lost+found and showed as /media/demo. That is not what is desired for the installation (and demo was not the home user name.) Tried again with custom using swap pointing at existing partitions failed. tried again with noswap two partitions failed. noswap to single partition failed.
back to trying entire some more. formatted it again and again. put a 1M btrfs at beginning and the rest ext2. selected entire device. it installed. that one would not boot. many trials with partitioning and formatting. about one hundred trys in all. all stop right away at beginning fail.
set a 1M ext2 at front and the rest ext4, hit the entire device button, suddenly it worked that time.
I switched the kernel to 4.9.186. installed all upgrades including putting back install antix-goodies.
It is the working proper install that is desired [desired on the first try though] with 12.88G ext4 partition and 2.0G linux-swap partition.

Machine was still running antix19.a2_64 installed to usb2-32G. and i fell out of the trials. I like the alpha a lot. Alpha has been on every day since release. Now the machine has also the antix19.b2_64 installed to usb2-16G to trial. a fresh install.
In the middle of the trials it seemed like having any swap partition present just killed it. The only success was without a swap partiton present. The trials got beyond notes; too numerous. Not sure why it worked when it did decide to succeed.

Thank you for the rox panel visibility fix.

edit: Ongoing. Yes. got another One. second one.
booted live fresh persistent b2_64 device.
Opened NEW fresh out of the package usb2-32G.
No prep. on new usb. installer gui. select install to entire device.
installed first time flawless.
That means only a third usb will establish result.
The first usb may be fault. will publish after a third usb trial.

[Forum Admin Dave]

Core is probably correct with the newer versions and build up from there. I cannot recall exactly but I seem to recall previous discussions about the default kernel where it was labeled one but was another. Either it was labeled 386, but was actually 486… but it could be labeled 486 but is actually 686… which would make booting a new copy of core quite difficult. Good chance this is a long past stagnant memory but perhaps someone could clarify.

However maybe some more clarification on what you have going on could be helpful?

At what point does it “not start”? Do you get a boot menu? Is it just nothing past the bios? Are you running it off a cd? Perhaps from a copy of the iso to the hard drive? Several floppies? Etc?

Computers are like air conditioners. They work fine until you start opening Windows. ~Author Unknown