SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#26 2013-10-13 17:59:07

Inodoro Pereyra
#! Die Hard
From: Back in Buenos Aires
Registered: 2013-07-01
Posts: 842

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Ok, I tried it with crunchbang, and got the same message. sad

Noitice that in the window it says "libparted bug found". I don't know if that's important or not. In any case, I tried to install libparted, and got this:

 13 Oct 13 | 14:53:30 ~
    $ get libparted
[sudo] password for bernardo: 
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'libparted0debian1' instead of 'libparted'
libparted0debian1 is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
 
 13 Oct 13 | 14:53:52 ~

So... what's wrong here? sad

Offline

Help fund CrunchBang, donate to the project!

#27 2013-10-13 19:22:07

kyeshi98
Member
Registered: 2013-02-11
Posts: 35

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Inodoro Pereyra wrote:

Ok, I tried it with crunchbang, and got the same message. sad

Noitice that in the window it says "libparted bug found". I don't know if that's important or not. In any case, I tried to install libparted, and got this:

 13 Oct 13 | 14:53:30 ~
    $ get libparted
[sudo] password for bernardo: 
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'libparted0debian1' instead of 'libparted'
libparted0debian1 is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
 
 13 Oct 13 | 14:53:52 ~

So... what's wrong here? sad

Oh yeah, sorry for not asking these questions earlier:
Prior to following these directions, have you erased everything on the USB and formatted it into one single FAT-32 partition?
Also, which step are you stuck on? Have you already successfully been able to boot from #! the first time, or does it not work at all?

Offline

#28 2013-10-13 20:11:26

Inodoro Pereyra
#! Die Hard
From: Back in Buenos Aires
Registered: 2013-07-01
Posts: 842

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Don't be sorry. I appreciate you helping me out. big_smile

I did erase everything without a problem. Then I installed CB, and everything worked fine.
It's on step 5, when I try to create the second partition, when everything goes to hell. I resized the first partition without incident, but, once I try to create the second one, I get the error message.

EDIT: I do have to create the partition table as an MS-DOS type, right?

Last edited by Inodoro Pereyra (2013-10-13 20:15:57)

Offline

#29 2013-10-13 20:42:23

kyeshi98
Member
Registered: 2013-02-11
Posts: 35

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Inodoro Pereyra wrote:

Don't be sorry. I appreciate you helping me out. big_smile

I did erase everything without a problem. Then I installed CB, and everything worked fine.
It's on step 5, when I try to create the second partition, when everything goes to hell. I resized the first partition without incident, but, once I try to create the second one, I get the error message.

EDIT: I do have to create the partition table as an MS-DOS type, right?

Oh. That's weird, as I've never seen such an exact error message before. I believe MS-DOS is right and all.

Offline

#30 2013-10-13 22:07:17

Inodoro Pereyra
#! Die Hard
From: Back in Buenos Aires
Registered: 2013-07-01
Posts: 842

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Nope. Doesn't work. sad

Now I tried it again, and it doesn't even boot on the USB (and the computer does allow for it). It just starts looping a list of errors and whatnot.

Oh, well... we tried. Thank you anyway, for taking the time.

Offline

#31 2013-10-13 23:39:10

kyeshi98
Member
Registered: 2013-02-11
Posts: 35

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Inodoro Pereyra wrote:

Nope. Doesn't work. sad

Now I tried it again, and it doesn't even boot on the USB (and the computer does allow for it). It just starts looping a list of errors and whatnot.

Oh, well... we tried. Thank you anyway, for taking the time.

Hey, don't necessarily give up yet. I'm just a bit busy at the moment, I'll get back to you once I'm done with my mess. wink

Offline

#32 2013-10-14 04:17:36

Inodoro Pereyra
#! Die Hard
From: Back in Buenos Aires
Registered: 2013-07-01
Posts: 842

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Iḿ not giving up, but I just realized this topic can get your thread closed, so don't worry, I'll figure it out, eventually.

Thank you for all your help. big_smile

Offline

#33 2013-10-17 22:14:11

phlebas
New Member
Registered: 2013-07-09
Posts: 8

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

What a shame. Do you have a way of doing this that does not involve unetbootin? I can't get that to work on any OS.

Offline

#34 2013-10-17 22:17:57

kyeshi98
Member
Registered: 2013-02-11
Posts: 35

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

phlebas wrote:

What a shame. Do you have a way of doing this that does not involve unetbootin? I can't get that to work on any OS.

I'm not quite sure, as the other method - "dd" from the command line - makes gparted and possibly mount have issues with correctly recognizing the disk, which results in issues because I am only familiar with resizing the partitions through gparted. Perhaps, if you are familiar with a tool such as fdisk or parted, you can try first "dd'ing" the #! ISO onto the USB and then resizing with fdisk/parted/whateveryouuse instead of gparted. Sorry if I couldn't help!

Kye

Offline

#35 2013-10-18 00:14:47

porkpiehat
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-10-02
Posts: 1,007

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

phlebas wrote:

What a shame. Do you have a way of doing this that does not involve unetbootin? I can't get that to work on any OS.

This particular method relies on unetbootin, because it requires that the iso be "installed" on a partition which then allows its syslinux config file to be edited. Unetbootin installs syslinux. "dd" does not.

What particular problems have you had with unetbootin? That's probably a better place to look for solutions if you want to use this method for persistemce.

Last edited by porkpiehat (2013-10-18 00:15:56)

Offline

#36 2013-11-16 18:29:31

somian
New Member
Registered: 2009-06-07
Posts: 7

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

phlebas wrote:

What a shame. Do you have a way of doing this that does not involve unetbootin? I can't get that to work on any OS.

I have been writing up another reply in TT&S (this forum) this week on the same larger topic (see 345616 - post #77 in the thread How To prepare an ISO to USB - Linux & Windows Instructions). I can briefly restate a little bit of what I said in that post here because the same confusing issues appear in some followups in both discussions or others I've scanned through.

About unetbootin: it's a little tool taking on a big issue. A fine effort really. I can't properly review the tool without going waaaaay beyond the topical focus of this forum and a review that's too brief would do the software and its author injustice. Note, however, that these days I am not making USB sticks on Windows, I am doing it in Linux. On Windows a tool like unetbootin might be the very best approach for many people. But for me: I have (recently) run unetbootin from (a couple of) Linux (installations). I studied what it does. I guess from the start my goal was really to thoroughly figure out what that thing is doing under the hood and then apply that understanding in the future. I do not plan on using unetbootin much.

I suspect that unetbootin often works better than people are reporting (the comments I've come across seem mixed with many disappointments reported). Can I suggest that having a quick free-to-download tool is not a substitute for understanding the basic thing that is going on? I know that suggestion runs against laziness and/or being too busy to make a project out of delving into the matter.

No tool, unetbootin or any other, can change the basic facts of PC booting and the way Live Linux ISOs are currently prepared.

Picking on Kyeshi:

kyeshi98 wrote:

I'm not quite sure, as the other method - "dd" from the command line - makes gparted and possibly mount have issues with correctly recognizing the disk, which results in issues because I am only familiar with resizing the partitions through gparted.

Maybe I can clarify. dd is a low-level tool (whereas unetbootin is a hack, a messy pile of various calls to various lower-level tools). dd is as basic as one can get, really. It controls sending some number of bytes from a source to a destination, and that destination can be the linux block device abstraction (and usually is). It can change the way the bytes are written but it doesn't have any internal understanding about what the bytes mean. It would be better to say, therefore, that the two ways are:
 

  1. Directly write the ISO image to a block device

  2. Take data (with programmed-in understanding of what certain files are) from inside the ISO-9660 filesystem and copy parts of it into another filesystem

The dd usage shown in instructions for creating a bootable USB drive do the first thing. The use of unetbootin is an example of the second thing.

You are not ending up with a USB stick that can support persistence when you use the first approach. Never. There is no "luck" involved. This is not a failure of dd or the people who advocate it. You are doing something completely different from the second thing, is all. In the first case, the output is going to an entire drive (tip: /dev/sdb is an example of how an entire drive is named in linux). In the second case, if you are using unetbootin and selecting among certain menu choices inside its interface, you are doing something different. You are first being told to prepare a drive in a certain way (as this Tip discussed) and then mounting a partition on that USB drive and then unetbootin is copying files from inside an ISO-9660 filesystem (the ISO image) into another filesystem, and that filesystem lives on a partition that has been created on a drive (disk). In the first mode there is no partition. The drive was not prepared at all beforehand, and if it had been, because an attempt was made to mix these two modes, it failed - because using dd to write the whole ISO to the USB stick did overwrite everything on that stick (for all practical purposes, exotic forensic techniques aside).

If there is one partition (really a partition - see below about gparted's dishonesty or ignorance), there can be two. The persistence setup this tip and other similar sources demonstrate, are about using a USB stick in USB-HDD mode, one of two ways a PC-like system can understand a removable USB drive. The other way/mode the USB drive can be understood by the PC-like machine is as a SuperFloppy, a floppy that's arbitrarily large. A floppy disk is a bizarre archaic notion nowadays but lives on in this one sense. A floppy has no partitions. The is no mbr with a partition table at the beginning of the physical disk. There are no partitions. It is not one big partition. There are no partitions.

This point leads us to addressing Kyeshi's words above,

"dd" from the command line - makes gparted and possibly mount have issues with correctly recognizing the disk

Yeah. That's because gparted is a partitioning tool - it creates, removes and manipulates partitions. But a "SuperFloppy" has no partitions. If any tool like gparted even pretends that it is going to do what the user really means, if it lets the user think it is working properly according to its mission with the SuperFloppy disk device as-is, then it is a seriously buggy or mis-designed tool. (It shouldn't just die, of course [and, errr, maybe the reader can tell that I am not a raving fanboy where gparted is concerned? ...]). It should recognize that perhaps there is no partition table here, not just a "messed up partition table" but none at all, but there is a filesystem, and that's going to take lengthy and skillful programming, btw, and then it should DTRT (do the right thing) (which is probably to offer to explain to the user about unpartitioned use of disk space e.g. SuperFloppy mode, and recommend they terminate use of this gparted session until they are sure they understand). No release of gparted (or its underlying library backend, libparted) that i've seen, does anything like what i am describing, btw (and I think that demonstrates myopia on the part of gparted's developers, but that's another discussion).

I think using gparted on a USB drive that has had a CrunchBang ISO written to it may show one partition present (an ISO-9660 filesystem on a partition "1"). This is probably a lie. Gparted is not doing the right thing. It is lying to us. And since Kyeshi and many of the rest of us have been lied to, we now should get a sense of relief, deservedly. We are not just too dumb to understand. We have been misled. That makes a difference.

A SuperFloppy USB drive can boot (uhh, of course) (see earlier referenced discussion thread)  and it can be read from during the Linux sessions. I am not saying it does not work. I am saying that if the SuperFloppy drive has a CD-ROM (remember what ROM means) filesystem, that is, ISO-9660, it is a read-only filesystem. There can be no persistence. We can use #! Live or install it. We cannot save our changes. Anyway, it is vastly a better idea to install any Linux OS distro properly unless that distro has been designed from the bottom up to only ever be run as a limited Live session, IMHO. Just because we can persist and that's a neat thing doesn't mean it is preferable to set up a long-term use system based on this.

In summary, gparted is partly to blame, dd is not at all to blame, unetbootin is a hack and so is everything like it or derived from it. Live Linux ISOs have still been an evolving approach for many years, persistence is very cool but don't let the shiny light in your eyes blind you to the rest of the picture. And for sure, try the straightforward dd approach if you have not ever been able to start / install #! from its distributed (Live-) ISO by (maybe) following other tips.

Regards smile somian


You estimate that no one wants to be abruptly ousted from a forum, that shame (or ego-involvement) is just too uncomfortable, and that therefore your targets will let themselves be manipulated by you in order to avoid an uncomfortable confrontation with that serious falsehood that masquerades as "majority opinion." what-is-that-smell/

Offline

#37 2013-11-17 02:05:46

kyeshi98
Member
Registered: 2013-02-11
Posts: 35

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

somian wrote:

... loong quote ...

Thank you for clarifying so much, somian. I really didn't have a great understanding of this thing, so you've showed me a lot. However, this tutorial is simply for those who are looking for persistence on Waldorf -- you're definitely correct about not only focusing on persistence, and, yes, trying dd if one only needs to install #!.

Offline

#38 2013-12-13 16:16:00

kbmonkey
#! Die Hard
From: South Africa
Registered: 2011-01-14
Posts: 879
Website

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

I want to take a moment to thank you for this guide, it worked really well!

A couple of pointers I came across:

1. I did not do the whole resize-partition thing, I created the two partitions off the bat, and it works as well. But since I was doing this in a live environment I got the same bug in gparted that Inodoro saw. I used fdisk instead and that worked great. Essentially I followed the partition creation steps from statler live usb thread replacing "live-rw" with "persistence".

2. The "Default" boot option went into an infinite loop with Xorg crashing. I noticed that boot line uses a different kernel line than the "Live Session" one. So in syslinux.cfg I just deleted the Default boot option.

3. Profit!

Your post is a big help, thanks!  monkey

Offline

#39 2013-12-13 20:08:14

Naik
#! Die Hard
From: Leipzig
Registered: 2012-11-16
Posts: 595

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

i wanted to thank you too.
as i never had real good experience with unetbootin (even if it works, it so darn ugly afterwards), i partitioned the usb-key with fdisk mounted the #! iso to my system and copied all files without the markup of iso-fs and intalled and set up extlinux manually afterwards.
allthough i dont really knew what i was doing there i ended up with working persistent install which looked nicer, is cleaner and uses less diskspace than the unetbootin version i tried earlier.
and on top of this i learned enough about extlinux to even create a multiboot stick with hbcd (for emergency rescue of win systems), LXDE (for showcast) and persistent #!.
all this would have never been possible without this howto!

thanks again- naik


*kaum macht man es richtig, funktioniert es sofort*

Offline

#40 2013-12-29 10:43:41

AndyinMokum
#! Junkie
From: Amsterdam
Registered: 2013-09-01
Posts: 274

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Good morning everyone.  I hope everyone who participated in seasonal excesses are back to normal  big_smile !  I am trying to install a persistent #! to a 8GB SanDisk thumb drive as described in the post.  Here is the question.  I cannot use "unetbootin".  I just cannot get the damn thing to recognize any of my USB ports.  It is the only package that I have this problem with.  I only use the "dd" method of making a LiveUSB.  It is reliable and always seems to work.  The problem is that when I make the LiveUSB and try to view it in GParted  I receive the error:

Libparted Bug Found!
Invalid partition table - recursive partition on /dev/sdd

The options to ignore or cancel are the only choices. The volume of the thumb drive is "unallocated" even though there is a working Live "image" installed. This happens to all of the USB devices I have tried.  It makes no difference if I use a stand alone GParted or Gparted installed to a distro.  I've tried various live DVDs and GParted in Porteus.  The result is the same as described above.  The explanation LibpartedBugFound gives an explanation but no solution. This is fine if you are only using a Live installation but for persistence, I need to edit the partition table.  My head now hurts from scratching it so it is time for the cavalry.  Any help is most welcome smile .


"If you can't blind 'em with science, baffle 'em with bullshit".

Distros: Crunchbang 11 ""Waldorf" 64bit & Peppermint Five 64bit, Machine: Fujitsu-Siemens AMILO Notebook Li 3710, CPU: 2x Intel Pentium Dual CPU T3400 @ 2.16GHz, RAM: 4GB

Offline

#41 2013-12-30 12:54:06

kbmonkey
#! Die Hard
From: South Africa
Registered: 2011-01-14
Posts: 879
Website

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

@AndyInMokum, your unetbootin does not show your usb devices? hmm, have you run unetbootin from a terminal and sudo and noticed any relevant error output messages? Perhaps it only detects file systems of the proper types (fat32)? Only *after* you tried that and cannot resolve the issue perhaps try tuxboot (a fork of unetbootin).

Secondly, see my post above regarding that gparted bug, and use fdisk instead.

Good luck!

Offline

#42 2014-02-07 20:13:01

porkinterface
New Member
From: Titicaca
Registered: 2013-06-27
Posts: 6

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

It works!  Thanks for the guide!


Here's to you & here's to me.  Hope we never disagree.
But if we do, forget you.  Here's to me.

Offline

#43 2014-02-25 10:13:54

Naik
#! Die Hard
From: Leipzig
Registered: 2012-11-16
Posts: 595

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Though i look into it every time I set up a new persistent live-key,  I would recommend one change to the guide:
Since Lili is available for linux there should be no reason to use the buttugly unetbootin any longer.

Cheers -naik


*kaum macht man es richtig, funktioniert es sofort*

Offline

#44 2014-02-25 17:56:51

pvsage
Internal Affairs
From: North Carolina
Registered: 2009-10-18
Posts: 13,956

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

^ This will be the Best News Ever...once the installer is aware of post-Ubuntu CrunchBang releases. cool

Offline

#45 2014-04-16 07:14:23

sushant18596
New Member
Registered: 2014-04-15
Posts: 1

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Hey guys I'm  a bit new to linux but i retried the guide many times but I'm not able to get it working.
Is there any guide on how to do this on Windows.
I am to boot the live usb but no persistence i have no error messages it perfectly boots.
Please help.

Last edited by sushant18596 (2014-04-23 14:45:54)

Offline

#46 2014-04-16 11:00:09

Naik
#! Die Hard
From: Leipzig
Registered: 2012-11-16
Posts: 595

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

@pvsage: jeah, you`r right. i guess i was a bit too motivated after the first glance. lili is great and all but as you said: most of the installable distros are way too old...


*kaum macht man es richtig, funktioniert es sofort*

Offline

#47 2014-04-18 20:59:24

ManuDS
Member
Registered: 2013-05-13
Posts: 47

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

This worked for me! Thanks OP.  cool

Offline

#48 2014-06-04 23:28:40

as_te_ri_x
Member
From: Portugal
Registered: 2014-06-04
Posts: 11

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Hello!

#1 - Thanks a lot kyeshi98 for this guide, it helped me resolving the #! persistence issue with waldorf.

#2 - Your hint on the live-persistence.conf was huge (I was reading debian live manual, but it still states persistence.conf as the file...  )

#3 - @somian - Your post is awesome!

#4 - I deeply change this guide because I don't use unetbootin or similar software,

#5 - Shortly I'll be writing a tutorial explaining how to accomplish persistence based on my experience, using only:
- fdisk (or gparted) for partitioning (2 partitions or more!)
- dd only to "copy" the .iso contents onto a partition
- grub to boot with persistence without a stress!

Once again, thank you all for the great knowledge shared!

Offline

#49 2014-06-16 03:33:55

elganzua124
New Member
From: Argentina, La Plata
Registered: 2014-04-13
Posts: 5

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

Thanks! I followed all your steps and all went right. Though I'm quite intrigued with /var/log/live/boot.log:

mount: mounting /dev/sda on /live/persistence/sda failed: No such device
mount: mounting /live on /root/live failed: Invalid argument

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#50 2014-06-16 10:56:12

as_te_ri_x
Member
From: Portugal
Registered: 2014-06-04
Posts: 11

Re: The Correct Way for Persistence on a LiveUSB for WALDORF

As promised before, I managed to put up a tutorial to setup a #! CrunchBang waldorf liveUSB drive with persistence using: fdisk, dd, grub and some tweaks.

Check it out http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic. … 63#p383563, there's also a Portuguese version http://librehacks.blogspot.pt/2014/06/c … veusb.html if you like.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Debian Logo