[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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) -

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'


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: