Re: MISTERY - 3° Weekly "wheezy" from jigdo file md5sum errors
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:15:43 +0200, Alex <alex@laseroffice.it> wrote:
This week a real mystery happened !!!
jigdo-lite session fail DVD 2 amd64:
2012-04-10 16:51:06 (428 KB/s) -
"debian-testing-amd64-DVD-2.iso.tmpdir/mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/pool/main/x/xchat/xchat-common_2.8.8-5_all.deb"
salvato [1182828]
TERMINATO --2012-04-10 16:51:06--
Scaricati: 5 file, 3,0M in 7,6s (400 KB/s)
Found 5 of the 5 files required by the template
Successfully created `debian-testing-amd64-DVD-2.iso'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finished!
ERROR: Checksums do not match, image might be corrupted!
#
... but final test with md5sum command report:
# md5sum -c MD5SUMS.i386
debian-testing-i386-DVD-1.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-2.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-3.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-4.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-5.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-6.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-7.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-8.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-9.iso: OK
debian-testing-i386-DVD-10.iso: OK
# md5sum -c MD5SUMS.amd64
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-1.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-2.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-3.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-4.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-5.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-6.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-7.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-8.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-9.iso: OK
debian-testing-amd64-DVD-10.iso: OK
#
ALL OK !!!
I don't know what to think :(
And you ?
I would recommend you stress-test the very same box on which you've
created these images,
watching for non-identical results, by either of these:
* several runs of (at least 10)
md5sum -c MD5SUMS.i386
(likewise: md5sum -c MD5SUMS.amd64)
* If you still keep .jigdo and .template files around for some image,
you can also run
'jigdo-file verify', also several times:
jigdo-file verify --image=some.iso --jigdo=some.jigdo
--template=some.template
(this is the final step run by jigdo-lite when it says 'echo
"Finished!"', no download is involved at all)
Faulty hardware is quite likely to provoke non-identical checksum
calculation results for several subsequent runs.
Reply to: