ISO file download vs copying ISO from CD

[stevesr0]

I have a KNOPPIX CD and want to make an ISO image file in order to make copies. Of the machines available to me, two are partitioned with the NTFS and one has two partitions (vfat and ext2) with one of these partitions containing at least 850 meg free space.

So, I planned to use the tohd command to generate a CD image on the hard drive and then use the CD image (=iso file) to make bootable CDs. However, on that computer I haven't been successful in running the live CD (lots of Cloop errors).

I tried to download an isofile from various mirror sites but the rate is always very slow (5 - 12 KB/sec) and generally stops after 20-40 meg are downloaded. Tried bittorrent but the program never launches.

While I see captive NTFS on the KNOPPIX system after it launches (3.4 version that was included with KNOPPIX Hacking book), I have read that it is not a good idea to enable writing to NTFS.

I would appreciate a clarification about why it is OK to download an ISO image to an NTFS partition, but not OK to copy the same ISO file to an NTFS partition.

More importantly, I would appreciate advice from others about how I might best obtain an iso image. If I launch linux on my old laptop with 850 megs of free space, is there a simple way I can copy an iso image to it without using the knoppix to hd command?

Thanks

[Harry Kuhman]

I have a KNOPPIX CD and want to make an ISO image file in order to make copies. Of the machines available to me, two are partitioned with the NTFS and one has two partitions (vfat and ext2) with one of these partitions containing at least 850 meg free space.

Something about this just doesn't seem right and I wouldn't expect this would work to make a Knoppix CD copy. I guess you could check and see if the resulting ISO had an md5 sum that matched the posted md5 (which would confirm the iso is what you want it to be, and the md5 should download quickly from any mirror. But I would consider just using a Copy CD function built into most burning software, such as Nero.

.... However, on that computer I haven't been successful in running the live CD (lots of Cloop errors).

Another, but not the only reason that I wouldn't want to try "making" an ISO this way. Just copying the (I presume known good) CD would be far better.

By the way, have you tried to boot Knoppix on this computer with the nodma cheat code?

..... Tried bittorrent but the program never launches.

I have had to try several mirrors and let a download run overnight too. Worse, frequently a download of the Knoppix ISO from a mirror is corrupt, it has undergone a Linux new line to MS CR/LF translation (which should obviously only happen for a text file, not a binary file). BitTorrent is far better and imune to the translation problem. It has been very fast for Knoppix downloads lately. Not sure what your problem is, but I have set it up on several of my systems with absolutely no problem at all. Since you indicate that you have several computers available I would suggest that you try getting Bittorent running on another system. It is a tool well worth resolving this to have available to you. Are you perhaps behind a hardware firewall (maybe in a home router) that you need to make settings to for port forwarding? Do you have any software firewalls (like that annoying MS thing) that are getting in your way? This is worth solving.

....... I have read that it is not a good idea to enable writing to NTFS.

Yup, that's an understaement.

II would appreciate a clarification about why it is OK to download an ISO image to an NTFS partition, but not OK to copy the same ISO file to an NTFS partition.

You can download (in XP) the Knoppix ISO to an NTFS partition. You can also copy an ISO file, with XP, from another NTFS partition or from a FAT partition to an NTFS partition, no problem, the ISO will be fine, and you can still make a bootable Knoppix CD from it. Writing to an NTFS partition from Linux is a completely different matter. And I don't believe that what you write to a HD will be exactly the same as the original bootable CD ISO (although I'll let the md5 sums be the final judge of that).

More importantly, I would appreciate advice from others about how I might best obtain an iso image. If I launch linux on my old laptop with 850 megs of free space, is there a simple way I can copy an iso image to it without using the knoppix to hd command?

Many burning software packages will make an image file of a CD. They have to when doing a copy if you only have one drive. In some cases these are their own formats (such as te Nero nrg format), in others they can be "standard" iso format (beware Roxio, who seemes to have decided around version 5 that having a standard made things too easy and apparently started making isos that could only be burned with Roxio software). But I suspect that you would be best off downloading a newer ISO. Bittorrent works and is simple and fast; it would be best to determine why it isn't working for you. If you decide to go back to the mirrors, try starting downloads from several mirrors (into different directories or renaming each) and then look in about ten minutes and kill all but the fastest. But if you do download from a mirror, be sure to download and check the md5 sum. Do not skip this step, it is important.

[A. Jorge Garcia]

Creating files on NTFS from Linux can ruin your the contents of your drive. Don't do it! I haven't used captiveNTFS which is supposed to fix this problem so I can't comment on that.

If you can boot the liveCD on a PC with vfat32 or ext3, can't you cat the CD to an iso file on one of those partitions?

Just a thought!

Regards,
AJG

[stevesr0]

Thanks for the comments. I did implement port forwarding after it was suggested by one of the responders (and I read about it). As I haven't worked in linux a lot, I am not familiar with using cat to copy the CD.

The 10th time I attempted to use Bittorrent, I chose "open" rather than save to disk and the client opened immediately and started downloading (I don't see this mentioned in the FAQ and it doesn't seem obvious except in hindsight<g>). While the download speed wasn't as high as many others have reported (~20-25 k/sec), it kept chugging along overnight and in the morning was complete, and looks to be the correct size (I haven't yet checked the MD5 sum).

Thanks to both responders.

Steve

[Harry Kuhman]

The 10th time I attempted to use Bittorrent, I chose "open" rather than save to disk and the client opened immediately and started downloading (I don't see this mentioned in the FAQ and it doesn't seem obvious except in hindsight<g>). While the download speed wasn't as high as many others have reported (~20-25 k/sec), it kept chugging along overnight and in the morning was complete, and looks to be the correct size (I haven't yet checked the MD5 sum).

Glad you got BitTorrent working, more or less. Do you have a hardware firewall (DSL/Cable router)? Are you running a software firewall (even that awful thing that comes in XP)? If you have either a software or hardware firewall (or, as in my case, both), the firewall can block incoming connections. The basic idea of BitTorrent is that many people have a copy of the file and upload as well as download (even before your get it all you can be making the parts that you do have available to others). If you have firewalls in place then others cannot get the file from you. Obviously if everyone did this the system would not work. So the proper thing is to forward the ports in your router and also in your software firewall so that incoming requests can get to BitTorrent. In an effort to encourage this, BitTorrent is designed to still let you download a file if you are not sharing, but it will run much slower than if you share what you have. Although maybe things were just slow when you downloaded your file, it sounds like maybe you were "leeching" and so BitTorrent slowed down by design.

[stevesr0]

I was downloading from a computer wirelessly networked. We set up port forwarding in the gateway/access point. On my computer, the XP firewall was not active and the internet connection service was not active.

The only thing I didn't attempt to modify was the DSL modem setup, since I realized that that could also have a firewall function only after I saw that the Bittorrent program was working.

As to being a leech, I followed the recommendation to stay connected after the file was downloaded and during this time, the upload rate was 10 kb/sec. I disconnected after 24 hours as recommended (about 350 meg had been uploaded during that time).

Obviously, I would be happy to upload more (in less time) especially if I would get a higher download rate. Since I am a visitor on my grandson's network, I don't want to muck with it just for my benefit. If he finds Bittorrent useful, then he can go through the ressetting of his modem and router/gateway/access point.

Parenthetically, I noted that there are a number of different Bittorrent and FTP clients said to have different advantages over the "originals". Some programs offer extra features including diagnosis of barriers to downloading and uploading. Any comments on these?

Thanks again.

Steve

[Harry Kuhman]

As to being a leech, I followed the recommendation to stay connected after the file was downloaded and during this time, the upload rate was 10 kb/sec. I disconnected after 24 hours as recommended (about 350 meg had been uploaded during that time).

Obviously, I would be happy to upload more (in less time) especially if I would get a higher download rate. Since I am a visitor on my grandson's network, I don't want to muck with it just for my benefit. If he finds Bittorrent useful, then he can go through the ressetting of his modem and router/gateway/access point.

Parenthetically, I noted that there are a number of different Bittorrent and FTP clients said to have different advantages over the "originals". Some programs offer extra features including diagnosis of barriers to downloading and uploading. Any comments on these?

Since you saw that uploading was indeed working then you were certainly not leeching. I have seen some routers that end up discarding some valid incoming requests even when passing others (the evil Dlink DL-514 comes to mind), but this is not likely your problem and not much you can do anything about anyway. I don't know enough abut your grandson's system to say if there are any speed limitations there (like maybe what is sold as "DSL lite" here), but I would have expected better throughput, it just seems like it didn't happen. The wireles connection might have been an issue, it certainly is normally rated faster than your internet speed, but can be lower for increased reliability and often ends up lower than advertised. I personally would avoid downloading such large files on a wireless connection. I always carry an Ethernet cable with my notebook so that I can "jack in" if at a friend's house rather than connect wirelessly. Still, it might just be that the demand for this file is declining and that there were not as many sites to download from as there were when I got my copy, which took me less than 3 hours on Bittorrent.

I don't know anything about the merits of other clients. If you do learn anything yourself, it would be helpful to post back what you find (the Lounge forum would be a good place for such a post).