need help downloading 4.02 dvd

[Harry Kuhman]

the problem is the 2Gig sizelimit for one single file of DVD media. it "splits" the *.ISO file when it is copied back...one file again, that is only way i can understand it.

Yes, that would make sense if the DVD were written in ISO 9660 format. But then the DVD file would not pass the md5 check, which xfiles said it does. So I had assumed that he had written the DVD using a different format, but it would be nice to know just how this DVD was written. Or maybe he used a hybred format to write the DVD that would allow larger files, but since it's hybred Windows is still using the 9660 format to read the data and trunkating the file.

[Dave_Bechtel]

That sounds about right. Try either making a UDF filesystem on the DVD, or splitting the .iso into 2GB chunks. You can reassemble with ' cat file1 file2 >file.iso ' on the other side.

the problem is the 2Gig sizelimit for one single file of DVD media. it "splits" the *.ISO file when it is copied back...one file again, that is only way i can understand it.

[xfiles]

the problem is the 2Gig sizelimit for one single file of DVD media. it "splits" the *.ISO file when it is copied back...one file again, that is only way i can understand it.

Yes, that would make sense if the DVD were written in ISO 9660 format. But then the DVD file would not pass the md5 check, which xfiles said it does. So I had assumed that he had written the DVD using a different format, but it would be nice to know just how this DVD was written. Or maybe he used a hybred format to write the DVD that would allow larger files, but since it's hybred Windows is still using the 9660 format to read the data and trunkating the file.

Hello again,
First of all, I have NO problem writing a 2+GB file or even the 3+ GB ISO. I just can't get a correct md5 after I copy that file to my poor, old, decrepit system. And I don't know why. I copied (burned may be the better term) the ISO to a DVD disk using K3B. Selected 'new data project' , found the ISO file and dragged it into the project box, and then clicked "burn". The resulting ISO file, which is now on a DVD disk, passes every MD5 check I've tried. But when I copy that ISO file to my older system's FAT32 hard drive, the size looks the same, everything seems OK, BUT it won't pass the MD5 check. Can't seem to get a passable downloaded torrent file that large on there either. I would just like to know why. Seems like it should.

BTW, I think K3B is about the best burner software you can get. Does everything I want it to.

Thanks

[Dave_Bechtel]

If you HAVE a good download at this point, it PASSES the md5 check, and you can BURN a good DVD, then WHY are you bothering to copy to the older system at all anymore??? Just use the known-good DVD burn already. It's more trouble than it's worth anymore.

If you have concerns about the Fat32 filesystem on the older machine, throw in another HD and format it with any decent Linux filesystem, I am 99% certain it will be OK then. Reiserfs, Ext3, ext2, your choice.

the problem is the 2Gig sizelimit for one single file of DVD media. it "splits" the *.ISO file when it is copied back...one file again, that is only way i can understand it.

Yes, that would make sense if the DVD were written in ISO 9660 format. But then the DVD file would not pass the md5 check, which xfiles said it does. So I had assumed that he had written the DVD using a different format, but it would be nice to know just how this DVD was written. Or maybe he used a hybred format to write the DVD that would allow larger files, but since it's hybred Windows is still using the 9660 format to read the data and trunkating the file.

Hello again,
First of all, I have NO problem writing a 2+GB file or even the 3+ GB ISO. I just can't get a correct md5 after I copy that file to my poor, old, decrepit system. And I don't know why. I copied (burned may be the better term) the ISO to a DVD disk using K3B. Selected 'new data project' , found the ISO file and dragged it into the project box, and then clicked "burn". The resulting ISO file, which is now on a DVD disk, passes every MD5 check I've tried. But when I copy that ISO file to my older system's FAT32 hard drive, the size looks the same, everything seems OK, BUT it won't pass the MD5 check. Can't seem to get a passable downloaded torrent file that large on there either. I would just like to know why. Seems like it should.

BTW, I think K3B is about the best burner software you can get. Does everything I want it to.

Thanks

[Harry Kuhman]

My understanding is that you can make a working bootable Knoppix DVD, but at this point this is more of an intelictual exercise to try to understand what is going wrong. I certainly can understand your wanting to do that, and it may help you resolve other problems in the future as well as helping others.

My experiences with Win98 are all with Win98se. I imagine that there could be some problem if you are using the first release of Win98 and not Win98se, but I'm still not aware of any limitation of this nature. Of course, without FAT32 you could only create 2 gig partitons, but that clearly isn't the problem. Are you using Win98se?

I still think the idea of a byte by byte file comparison of what is good on the DVD to what is failing the md5 test on the hard disk is called for and will give us a lot of information about this failure. It would be critical to find out things like if the error happens raight at the 2 gig point, if the bad bytes are all zeros, and so on.

Another thing that you might want to do that could help fix the problem but will give us a bit less information about the actual nature of the problem is make a par2 set on the original system's iso with quickpar. Make the block size something simple and clean to work with, like 1 meg. Then run the resulting par (without any extra recovery blocks) against the bad ISO on hard disk. That will tell you how many blocks are bad. One or two bad blocks are likely indicate a problem reading the file back from the disk. And it could easily be repaired by a few extra par files. Just over a gig's worth of bad blocks would indicate that a problem is likely happening at the 2 gig boundry (and would likely take more par recovery blocks than are worth creating).

[xfiles]

Dave wrote:
If you HAVE a good download at this point, it PASSES the md5 check, and you can BURN a good DVD, then WHY are you bothering to copy to the older system at all anymore??

Simply because I want to know WHY it doesn't work. I wonder if there are other folks out there with a system like mine and just give it up and say Knoppix isn't worth it. I'd hate to see that. Also I'm kind of stubborn and just hate the idea that my old fossil of a computer might be totally out of date.

Dave wrote:
Just use the known-good DVD burn already.

I have been and it works great! Amazing piece of work!

Dave wrote:
If you have concerns about the Fat32 filesystem on the older machine, throw in another HD and format it with any decent Linux filesystem, I am 99% certain it will be OK then. Reiserfs, Ext3, ext2, your choice.

This is something I think I forgot to mention before. Besides trying to copy it to my backup hard drive on a FAT32 partition, I also tried copying it to an ext2 partition on that same drive. I REALLY thought that would work also, but still got a bad md5. That's why I'm wondering if some of these older systems just can't handle that big a file. And you're right, this is probably more trouble than it's worth.

And Harry,
You're right, this probably is more of an academic or intellectual exercise since I can walk across the room and hook up a drive and burn a DVD if I want to. I just wonder about other folks. I would personally reccomend to them that they use a little higher end system than me if they want to download and burn the DVD. Also, this is a 98se system. But don't forget I'm using Slax or Knoppix (Konqueror) to copy stuff back and forth.

As far as the byte by byte comparison and the par tests go, I think I will just concede. I don't want to get that deep into it. I don't know anything about that par stuff (eyes begin to glaze over). But since you mentioned it, I may look it up and try to learn about it. I see what you mean about the file size and hitting bad bytes or pieces, though. Funny thing is, when I was downloading the torrent, upon recheck, I would get bad pieces toward the front of file then the next time it would be OK and then the next time they would be bad. Sometimes they would be scattered all through the download. Crazy...

Anyways, I'm not going to worry about this for the next few days. It is Christmas Eve after all. Time to go to church, be with family, eat like a pig, and drink lots of eggnog. Suggest all of you do the same if possible. Thanks to you folks for the replies, I appreciate it! If I figure this out I will let you know.

Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy Holidays

Xfiles

[Dave_Bechtel]

--I used to run a Squid server on a Pentium-1, 233MHz with 200MB of RAM. It never had problems downloading or handling large files (4GB+) on a Linux filesystem. It was a Knoppix HD install and I did use the ncurses BitTorrent client on it.

--I think it might be a hardware problem - bad memory, HD going bad, something like that. If you are copying the .iso from DVD to HD, and the MD5 on the DVD is good, it should *automatically* be good on the HD copy.

Try this:

o Burn the known-good ISO file to a UDF filesystem on DVD. *Not* ISO9660.

o On your questionable system, mount the DVD and:
' cp -apv /mnt/cdrom/isofile.iso /destdir ' -- Substituting where necessary, and /destdir is somewhere on your ext2 partition

' diff -s /mnt/cdrom/isofile.iso /destdir/isofile.iso ' == This does a byte/byte comparison.

--If THAT fails, try the same thing with another HD in your Q computer. (And check your IDE cables to see if they're loose.)

This is something I think I forgot to mention before. Besides trying to copy it to my backup hard drive on a FAT32 partition, I also tried copying it to an ext2 partition on that same drive. I REALLY thought that would work also, but still got a bad md5. That's why I'm wondering if some of these older systems just can't handle that big a file. And you're right, this is probably more trouble than it's worth.