next »

[teapot]

However I'll try  the installation form 767 and let you know.

After having few hours of fun myself  using a new 2GB USB stick I can confirm that I could not get Ubuntu running  off the USB stick. 
Script works for the installation of the files but during boot at the hardware initialization step you get a bunch of etx3 fs errors and the process halts as rao describes above in this page. Installing manually following the original teapot's instructions and modifying the olpc.fth and fstab files to read the USB stick at /dev/sda1 ends up at the exact same point.   
Was good while it lasted...

Please, before doing ANYTHING to partition table and filesystems, make absolutely sure, the device does not show up in the output of the mount command!

It should not be possible to get ext3 error on a recently formatted card, ever, unless something is simultaneously trying to write blocks to it, or the card is defective. Things just don't work that way.

[mavrothal]

/dev/sda , NOT /dev/sda1 !

Otherwise if your first sector by any chance resembles a filesystem (perhaps from a previous attempt of installation), firmware will try to boot from it.

Thanks for the info. However in the scripted attempt this was a factory fresh stick, and  as in Rao's case before my "manual" installation I also

Code:

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda conv=notrunc

the stick and then and then used fdisk for partitioning.

Please, before doing ANYTHING to partition table and filesystems, make absolutely sure, the device does not show up in the output of the mount command!

Is not showing in the output of the df command journal or anywhere else. Verified repetitively.

t should not be possible to get ext3 error on a recently formatted card, ever, unless something is simultaneously trying to write blocks to it, or the card is defective. Things just don't work that way.

The errors are there! Mine was a generic stick but Rao said he got a SanDisk stick.
Two different sticks in different places and different users to show exactly the same errors is unlikely be a stochastic event, I would guess.

[teapot]

The errors are there! Mine was a generic stick but Rao said he got a SanDisk stick.
Two different sticks in different places and different users to show exactly the same errors is unlikely be a stochastic event, I would guess.

I still have no idea what particular script and procedure are you talking about ( it certainly aren't my manual installation instructions at http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg21169#msg21169 and http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/images/olpc-ubuntu/ ). Can you post a link to it?

[teapot]

Per Teapot's instructions, make sure you run "sudo aptitude" in the terminal.  His file is a pre-release version of the final Hardy-Ubuntu release, so the sudo aptutude downloads the final version of Hardy.

"May 2008" or "20080506" tarball ( http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/torrents/OLPCFiles-hardy-20080506.tar.bz2.torrent ) is actually a release version of Hardy, just not the current one. http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/torrents/OLPCFiles-hardy-prerelease.tar.bz2.torrent is a prerelease.

Though a system installed from the prerelease can be safely upgraded to the current version, I recommend "May 2008" release tarball because it includes some later updates in non-packaged XO-specific files. I have posted updates separately in http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/software/olpc/olpc-ubuntu-hardy-update-files-20080506.tar.gz , however applying them to prerelease is a rather tedious procedure.

[Rao]

The errors are there! Mine was a generic stick but Rao said he got a SanDisk stick.
Two different sticks in different places and different users to show exactly the same errors is unlikely be a stochastic event, I would guess.

I still have no idea what particular script and procedure are you talking about ( it certainly aren't my manual installation instructions at http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg21169#msg21169 and http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/images/olpc-ubuntu/ ). Can you post a link to it?

I blieve  Mavrothal is talking about his script Ubinstall.sh (#249 Re: Beyond the Ubuntu Installation).
I used it and couldn't boot up after installing Ubuntu on a USB stick (after updating my XO to build-767).  So I reverted back to build-711 and using the exact same script successfully installed Ubuntu on a USB stick and booted up with no problem.  The bz2 file was on another SanDisk stick plugged into another USB port of the XO in both cases.
But Curuisingjack installed successfully on a SD stick after updating to 767 using your "manual script and booted up."

[mavrothal]

still have no idea what particular script and procedure are you talking about

we are talking about this http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg25065#msg25065
Manually means following your original instruction http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg21169#msg21169 substituting mmcblk0 with sda and mmcblk0p1 with sda1 and modifying olpc.fth and fstab as presented in the first of the two links above

[teapot]

still have no idea what particular script and procedure are you talking about

we are talking about this http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg25065#msg25065
Manually means following your original instruction http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg21169#msg21169 substituting mmcblk0 with sda and mmcblk0p1 with sda1 and modifying olpc.fth and fstab as presented in the first of the two links above

One thing stands out -- how do you know that /dev/sda1 is your new USB drive and not the other drive mounted on /media/USB ?  /dev/sda1 may be mounted under /media/USB , and the second drive will be /dev/sdb

With SD you can distinguish by type of device, /dev/sd* vs. /dev/mmcblk* , but with USB you can have devices attached in any order,

[Rao]

still have no idea what particular script and procedure are you talking about

we are talking about this http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg25065#msg25065
Manually means following your original instruction http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.msg21169#msg21169 substituting mmcblk0 with sda and mmcblk0p1 with sda1 and modifying olpc.fth and fstab as presented in the first of the two links above

One thing stands out -- how do you know that /dev/sda1 is your new USB drive and not the other drive mounted on /media/USB ?  /dev/sda1 may be mounted under /media/USB , and the second drive will be /dev/sdb

With SD you can distinguish by type of device, /dev/sd* vs. /dev/mmcblk* , but with USB you can have devices attached in any order,

I admit I don't know anything about file systems, devices, partitions, mount,, sfdisk and other commads.
But after running the script I find that Ubuntu OS on one disk (the one I expected) with nothing on bit before  and the same bz2 file on the other stick as before. This I know using the  command ls -l before umount in the terminal or journal until mount doesn't shows only the disk containing the stick containing the bz2 file.

By the way  I don't use name/component USB for the sticks.  In my script they are whatever the mount or ls -l command  shows it as.

I don't know if this makes sense or not but I thought I will say my two cents worth.

[mavrothal]

One thing stands out -- how do you know that /dev/sda1 is your new USB drive and not the other drive mounted on /media/USB ?  /dev/sda1 may be mounted under /media/USB , and the second drive will be /dev/sdb

That's why there are detailed instructions including stick load order. But this is not the issue at hand is it?...
The installation goes fine, all the files are there. If you forget the damn script and you do it carefully one command at a time you end up at the same point!
During the hardware initialization step you get a bunch of dev/sda1 ETX3 fs error, then that INIT can not execute /sbin/getty and then stops dead. And this is 767 specific!
Yes, with the SDcard you can have easier installation instructions (that's where my Ubuntu is)  but this is not the point. The point is having installed os767 in the XO can you install Ubuntu Hardy in a USB stick in any way? and if yes how?

[teapot]

The installation goes fine, all the files are there. If you forget the damn script and you do it carefully one command at a time you end up at the same point!
During the hardware initialization step you get a bunch of dev/sda1 ETX3 fs error, then that INIT can not execute /sbin/getty and then stops dead. And this is 767 specific!
Yes, with the SDcard you can have easier installation instructions (that's where my Ubuntu is)  but this is not the point. The point is having installed os767 in the XO can you install Ubuntu Hardy in a USB stick in any way? and if yes how?

Got a new USB stick, trying to reproduce...

[teapot]

Got a new USB stick, trying to reproduce...

Just reproduced.

The problem is in the new OLPC kernels -- for some reason they cause errors on USB drives. 2.6.25-based versions seem to break, 2.6.22-20080211.1.olpc works without problems, so for now I recommend using older kernel/ramdisk/modules combinations when booting from USB.

[mavrothal]

The problem is in the new OLPC kernels -- for some reason they cause errors on USB drives.

c'mon.... after the plague of the SD corruption now he have to worry about USB corruption? or could it be just Ubuntu specific? Has anybody tried to run 767 off a stick?

[teapot]

The problem is in the new OLPC kernels -- for some reason they cause errors on USB drives.

c'mon.... after the plague of the SD corruption now he have to worry about USB corruption? or could it be just Ubuntu specific? Has anybody tried to run 767 off a stick?

I have not seen any USB drive corruption yet, just read errors out of nowhere.

[cruisingjack]

Per Teapot's instructions, make sure you run "sudo aptitude" in the terminal.  His file is a pre-release version of the final Hardy-Ubuntu release, so the sudo aptutude downloads the final version of Hardy.

"May 2008" or "20080506" tarball ( http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/torrents/OLPCFiles-hardy-20080506.tar.bz2.torrent ) is actually a release version of Hardy, just not the current one. http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/torrents/OLPCFiles-hardy-prerelease.tar.bz2.torrent is a prerelease.

Though a system installed from the prerelease can be safely upgraded to the current version, I recommend "May 2008" release tarball because it includes some later updates in non-packaged XO-specific files. I have posted updates separately in http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/software/olpc/olpc-ubuntu-hardy-update-files-20080506.tar.gz , however applying them to pre-release is a rather tedious procedure.

Yes, I have been using the May 2008 tarball release.  By the way, when extracting the tar file from the USB stick in step 6, I identify it in the instructions as /media/(volume ID).  Where volume ID is the identification the USB stick was given during the formatting.  The eight digit alpha-numeric ID can be seen when the XO journal shows it mounted. I never use the device/sda identification.

[Rao]

Per Teapot's instructions, make sure you run "sudo aptitude" in the terminal.  His file is a pre-release version of the final Hardy-Ubuntu release, so the sudo aptutude downloads the final version of Hardy.

"May 2008" or "20080506" tarball ( http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/torrents/OLPCFiles-hardy-20080506.tar.bz2.torrent ) is actually a release version of Hardy, just not the current one. http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/torrents/OLPCFiles-hardy-prerelease.tar.bz2.torrent is a prerelease.

Though a system installed from the prerelease can be safely upgraded to the current version, I recommend "May 2008" release tarball because it includes some later updates in non-packaged XO-specific files. I have posted updates separately in http://mars.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/software/olpc/olpc-ubuntu-hardy-update-files-20080506.tar.gz , however applying them to prerelease is a rather tedious procedure.

Excuse me (English is not my mother tongue), what do you mean, "is actually a release version of Hardy, just not the current one."  To me, it means that you have a later version which we should be using (if released).  Is that right?
If my understanding is right, is the later version released?  If released where is it?

thanks.