Re: correct-i386-2 proved useless.
First of all, thank you for your answer. :-)
>but your "Wrong size" seems to be truthful.)
The strange thing is that my file has the _same exact_ size of the image
present on ftp.debian.org: 672.960.512 bytes. This I forgot to tell in my
previous email, excuse me.
>Uh? The md5sum is believed to have the property that if one bit changes
>in the file, about half the bits in the md5sum change...
In fact this left me quite... puzzled. :-)
Even a simple sum of the bytes should change if I add (or remove) one bit.
:-))))
>You could try correct-i386-2 a second time; it should then say "already
>corrected[...]" which would mean the offending bit really was corrected
>the first time.
I did this too, and excuse me for having forgot to report it here in the
previous email. (usually I am a good beta tester, though ;-)) As you
suspected, it told me: "File not corrected: [cut] maybe already corrected?
Error is: 0"
>Before starting rsync (with the pseudo-image/wrongly-rsynced-image
>already present!), you should have at least 650 MB free disk space, since
>rsync will build a second, new copy of the image, while the old copy is
>still present.
I have almost 1GB free. I noted a problem, though. If I start a rsync
session but I stop it after a while, then, when I start again, it _doesn't_
resume but starts from beginning making a new file w/ the same name and a
'a' in the extension. I didn't try it two times to see if it would get a
'b' or what else. :-)
Note that this wasn't the case when I got the "wrong size" error since, at
every "restart" I delete the old file after a while (I hope it suddenly
recognizes it and resumes it...) so there was "plenty" of free space :-)
This other problem of not-resume becomes important after some lines of this
email. :-)
>Try rsyncing again, but now with a larger block-size, like 20000 or even
>123456. This solves most problems in most cases.
I tried w/ 12345, then left the computer working. When I was back, there
was a I/O error... well. Why? I don't know. :-)
I tried it again changing server (I was on ftp.debian.org) and went to the
italian rsync mirror. This time I tought: if blocksize is the size of the
blocks being "checksum-ed", if I put a _smaller_ value, the checksum will
be "better" and maybe will help things. This was due to the fact that I
already had a size in mind: 4096, which is both the missing file size (but
the image on the site and pseudo-image I have share the same filesize) and
the size of my clusters (FAT32).
Note: I even defragmented and run scandisk afraid of ONE broken cluster on
the HD or something like that, but it didn't bring any good news.
Now, what happenede with this blocksize?
It started downloading, then skipped some ~100KB then downloaded from the
FTP, some ~100KB, again skip, again download, again skip then... begun
downloading like if the image was completely ruined.
It's still downloading, 111.382.528 (16%) (not skipping anything)
Sharing curiosity, fear and amazement, I will leave the program downloading
it... and see what happens at 99% this time. I hope I don't get
disconnected, otherwise it will start again from scratch.
This brings to me a question? Is this pseudo-image worth all this efforts
(which I proved were done the right, nay, the pointed way)? Assumed that
the majority of people doesn't have problems and only a few (or me only)
have them, wouldn't be a good idea to give permission to download the real
images from some mirrors? [ftp.debian.org is quite slow here in Europe :-(]
It would be like the message at ftp.at.debian.org: "This is the austrian
mirror. If you're not from austria, why are you here??? Do you have a good
reason at least?" [they were'nt exactly those words, but the meaning was this]
I _had_ a good reason to rsync my binary-i386-1_NONUS.iso from that site:
the italian one didn't have the NONUS iso :-)
(Phew, I didn't figure we (Italians) become part of the U.S.A. all of a
sudden ;-)))
So, do you think this idea would be good? To give access to the images
directly for circumstances which prove one already proved the other way? :-)
It's just an idea.
Since I begun downloading this second CD image I:
* got 1.3GB from 2 mirror servers
* rsync-ed for a 60MB for the failed rsync-s
* am rsync-ing 115314688 (17%)
Making the sum I'm being a problem for the mirrors (not that I want to
be!!! I planned to install debian last week... I'm still fighting for the
download!)
>Does the dselect doc _still_ say that?! Disregard that completely;
Ok, I will do ^__^
Thank you _very_ much and best regards,
Luca Santarelli
PS: tell me if you're part of the Mailing List, so next time (which I hope
will be a "THANK YOUUUUU" mail) I will or will not put you in the recipient
list. :-)
Reply to: