PDA

View Full Version : .iso won't validate



fireball
22nd September 2008, 02:15 PM
I can't get an FC9 .iso image to validate That's the problem in a nutshell. I've downloaded 3 times from 2 different sources All 3 images fail to validate. I've been using only direct download, as I've had bad experiences w/ torrent. I'll probably pull down a fourth image from yet another mirror later today. I really would like to give Fedora a spin. I'm eager to experience a distro that was built with SELinux in mind. Any suggestions? Thanks.

PabloTwo
22nd September 2008, 02:25 PM
Did you check the downloaded F9 iso file with the SHA1SUM file provided on the download site?
If the SHA1SUM code matches, then you have a good download. If they don't, the download file is corrupted. You generate a SHA1SUM on a file by opening a terminal and

sha1sum name_of_file

Some CD/DVD burning programs will pad the image file with leading zeros, which doesn't cause any harm to the image burn, but will result in a failed media validation check. Also, burning at less than full speed will improve your odds greatly of getting an error free burn.

fireball
22nd September 2008, 02:53 PM
Thanks. That was quick.
Did you check the downloaded F9 iso file with the SHA1SUM file provided on the download site?Yes. I checked it in terminal as per the instructions on Fedora's site.

If the SHA1SUM code matches, then you have a good download. If they don't, the download file is corrupted. You generate a SHA1SUM on a file by opening a terminal and

sha1sum name_of_fileI'll recheck my steps on this when I get back home, but I'm sure I followed the steps on the page implicitly. Thanks again.

reashlin
22nd September 2008, 04:23 PM
As above be aware that the DVD burnt may be correct but your burning software may be padding/otherwise changing the data.

I tend to install with a disk without checking it. Then only check the disk if I get install errors. I often find a disk that does not pass an error check does install and work just fine.

fireball
23rd September 2008, 02:26 AM
Before downloading yet another .iso of FC9, I ran sha1sum on the three images I've already downloaded. I was surprised to get three different strings back. Being curious, I ran it a 2nd & 3rd time and got back yet even more different strings each time. Is this right? I should think the string would remain constant for a given .iso, regardless of how many times you run sha1sum. Anyone have a handle on this? I'm at a loss for how to proceed. I'm anxious to get started, but after recent experience I'm a little paranoid about loading any unverified software on my box.

reashlin
23rd September 2008, 09:16 AM
You should always get the same sha1sum when you run over the same file. Assuming you have not changed the file in any way.

Also you are right to be paranoid about using a file that does not sum properly.

Where have you been getting the downloads from, I will assume you are picking up the mirror list at http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora. If you are not, then you should only be going there for Fedora media.

I have had luck in the past with the Jigdo download, it is similar to torrenting but only from valid mirrors. It basically downloads the .iso package at a time and then rebuilds it. Checking every package as it goes. This could be worth an attempt.

fireball
23rd September 2008, 10:28 AM
Yes, I got the .iso's from Project Fedora and Project Fedora-listed mirrors. After reading your post I downloaded jigdo-lite and right now it's pulling down FC9. Maybe this one will validate.

fireball
24th September 2008, 07:04 AM
This is not working out too well. I executed a jigdo download (took over 12 hours) and once it was done, jigdo ran a checksum and it came back invalid. Followed up with a 4th direct download and still no validation. I really feel like I'm fighting a losing battle now. I'll try one more approach before I call it quits. I'm going to zero-fill my drive and install one of the distros I have laying around, before trying one last time. Just to make sure my drive drive doesn't have any nasties on it. I really shouldn't have anything on it though, as I zero-filled the drive and installed ubuntu and firestarter less than 24 hours prior to pulling down the first FC9 .iso.

Thanks Pablo Two and Reashlin. I appreciate your responses.

reashlin
24th September 2008, 09:45 AM
I must admit this is wierd. It could be that the HDD you are saving too is having issues. It might be worth a fsck or chkdsk on the drive to give it a thorough testing. It might also be worth looking at the S.M.A.R.T. info for that particular drive.

Can I ask what the drive is, I know I had an old 80GB IDE drive a while ago that appeared to be working fine. Windows would install and run no problem but when I tried to install linux I always returned an error and the installer would lockup. For every distro.

After much mucking about it turned out to be the IDE ribbon cable I was using. Swapping it out for another and the drive worked just fine. Never did work out what was wrong, though the cable would kill any computer is was used in.

It could be a similar (maybe not the same problem) with your system. I think it is much less likely to happen with a SATA drive.

Anyway, its well worth a check of the disk itself, then maybe try a memory test, most install disks have one on if you already have a working one from any distro. It could be your RAM is on its way out. That would explain the erronous sha1sum at least.

fireball
24th September 2008, 02:09 PM
It could be that the HDD you are saving too is having issues. It might be worth a fsck or chkdsk on the drive to give it a thorough testing. It might also be worth looking at the S.M.A.R.T. info for that particular drive.Good points. I ran memtest and Seatools' integrity checker after installing ubuntu. I'll check s.m.a.r.t. and run fsck and see if it finds anything. The drive is a 250GB Seagate (SATA II), in it's 6th month of service. The whole system, but for the case, is 6 months into it's service life.

I believe the system was compromised for a short time prior to the most recent Ubuntu install, hence the zero-fill. I suspected a rootkit, but couldn't verify. Since some rootkits can compromise anything (including rkhunter), I chose the secure option and wiped the drive.

If this last download/verification effort doesn't stick, I'll just order a disc from one of the online publishers. (After seeing some of the additions and upgrades coming in 10, it makes me wish this were November.)

Again, Thanks.

fireball
28th December 2008, 04:56 PM
Just wanted to close this out. I ended up ordering a CD from a distro pub house, then when FC10 was released, I installed it fresh. All is much better now. Thx.