Welcome!
Important information
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities
-- Change in MX sources

News
-- MX Linux on social media: here
-- Mepis support still here

Current releases
-- MX-17.1 Final release info here
-- antiX-17 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

Message
Author
User avatar
dolphin_oracle
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#11 Post by dolphin_oracle » Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:56 pm

cuscotravelservices wrote:
dolphin_oracle wrote:have you considered going the liveUSB with persistence route? Install all the apps you need into the liveUSB, and it will work on any machine that can boot the usb. Later if you want to install to hard drive, you can do that and the apps you installed in the liveUSB will go with it.

the liveUSB (and the liveCD for that matter) will use an existing swap partition on the hard drive if there is one.

besides the system that m_pav suggests, you could try the antix-snapshot utility that is included in the base MX install. It will generate an iso of an existing install as well.
Using Root Persistence is already one option under consideration but as most Flash Drives are much slower to write to than a Hard Disk, then, I was thinking it may be more efficient to install to HD first and create an ISO from that.

Thanks, Michael.
whichever works for the way you need to work will be the best. HOwever, consider that when making the iso, you install the OS, all the apps, and then generate the iso, which is then turned into a liveUSB/CD/DVD. If you install all the apps in a liveUSB w/ persitence environment, then you skip installing the OS go straight to installing your apps, without the need to make the iso. Writing to the usb is slower than to an HD, but its not so slow as to be slower than making an iso of an installed system. once done, you can remaster the liveUSB is you want, but its not strictly speaking necessary.

However, having the iso made makes making multiple USB's very easy, so that is something to consider as well. I use MX almost exclusively in a live w/ persistence environment, so I'm a fan, but I won't say it fits every situation.
http://www.youtube.com/runwiththedolphin
eeepc 904ha antix 17 32 bit (streaming media player)
lenovo ThinkPad T530 - MX-17
lenovo s21e - antiX-17, MX17(live-usb)

User avatar
lucky9
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 11380
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:54 am

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#12 Post by lucky9 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:03 pm

The answer that was given to you on the other forum regarding a 'low-level format' is correct. It can't be done. However the zero-write wipe of a HDD is for the most part (nowadays), taken to mean a low-level format. The reason being that while a 'real' low-level format is a historical truth, a zero-write wipe is called that, similar to a 'kleenex' is now most any similar tissue. It has reached a generic meaning.

Personally I would zero-write the whole HDD. This would eliminate faults on the whole disk (you don't know where the fault/s may be). Start the process at bedtime and let it run overnight. It will take a while. If the disk fails this, and it can, then you'll need another disk.
Formatting is OS-controlled. It is the MBR (DOS-based) or GPT that's mentioned. There are several others including Amiga that still are around. Open GParted and take a look at an empty USB Flashdrive. There are many options for a Format. Note that you always have to Format a partition to make it usable.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_forma ... y_from_LLF
for information on when a real low-level format was left behind by the advances in technology.

If this isn't clear then post back and we'll try and help.
Yes, even I am dishonest. Not in many ways, but in some. Forty-one, I think it is.
--Mark Twain

User avatar
jdmeaux1952
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#13 Post by jdmeaux1952 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:47 pm

lucky9 wrote:....Personally I would zero-write the whole HDD. This would eliminate faults on the whole disk (you don't know where the fault/s may be)....
I would utilize a military-grade eraser like those listed here. http://www.bluechillies.com/software/mi ... asing.html
OR http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-secure ... with-shred

This way you will have nothing on the HD AND any bad sectors will be ignored.

The other way is to truly shred the HD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd_O7-rqcHc JD
MSI S6000 i5-460M 4Gb mem
I am not CrAzY. And I have a paper from the doctors to prove it!
LRU# 563815
Phear the Penguin

User avatar
lucky9
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 11380
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:54 am

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#14 Post by lucky9 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:22 pm

Unnecessary. The HDD is not going to some other person. Even if it was you need very specialized equipment to get anything off of a zero-wiped disk. Of course if you're someone who does things that might be of interest to a government then by all means do a DOD spec wipe. But even then I'd suggest that governments consider only a shred of the disk to be secure.
Yes, even I am dishonest. Not in many ways, but in some. Forty-one, I think it is.
--Mark Twain

cuscotravelservices
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#15 Post by cuscotravelservices » Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:36 pm

dolphin_oracle wrote:whichever works for the way you need to work will be the best. HOwever, consider that when making the iso, you install the OS, all the apps, and then generate the iso, which is then turned into a liveUSB/CD/DVD. If you install all the apps in a liveUSB w/ persitence environment, then you skip installing the OS go straight to installing your apps, without the need to make the iso. Writing to the usb is slower than to an HD, but its not so slow as to be slower than making an iso of an installed system. once done, you can remaster the liveUSB is you want, but its not strictly speaking necessary.

However, having the iso made makes making multiple USB's very easy, so that is something to consider as well. I use MX almost exclusively in a live w/ persistence environment, so I'm a fan, but I won't say it fits every situation.
I like the idea of having the ISO because if the USB Flash Drive should be irrevocably corrupted in anyway then operation of the computer can be quickly recovered by installing the ISO to another USB Flash Drive.

Thanks, Michael.

cuscotravelservices
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#16 Post by cuscotravelservices » Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:03 pm

lucky9 wrote:The answer that was given to you on the other forum regarding a 'low-level format' is correct. It can't be done. However the zero-write wipe of a HDD is for the most part (nowadays), taken to mean a low-level format. The reason being that while a 'real' low-level format is a historical truth, a zero-write wipe is called that, similar to a 'kleenex' is now most any similar tissue. It has reached a generic meaning.

Personally I would zero-write the whole HDD. This would eliminate faults on the whole disk (you don't know where the fault/s may be). Start the process at bedtime and let it run overnight. It will take a while. If the disk fails this, and it can, then you'll need another disk.
Formatting is OS-controlled. It is the MBR (DOS-based) or GPT that's mentioned. There are several others including Amiga that still are around. Open GParted and take a look at an empty USB Flashdrive. There are many options for a Format. Note that you always have to Format a partition to make it usable.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_forma ... y_from_LLF
for information on when a real low-level format was left behind by the advances in technology.

If this isn't clear then post back and we'll try and help.
Well, it's done.

"chkdsk /F" didn't change anything in anyway.

I tried to use Hutil to write 0s to the one bad LBA but the option presented was for actually wiping from LBA 0 up to the entered LBA. So, I let it do that and then I tried testing with MHDD again but wasn't able to because there was no longer a Partition Table nor File System to interrogate.

Next, I used Hutil to write 0s to the whole disk after which I loaded the GParted distro, using a Live USB, to rerun testdisk and things were looking pretty good.

Neither zero-write operation took very long - less than 30 minutes. The drive has a capcaity of 40GB and a rotational speed of 7200RPM.

Still in the GParted environment, I then created an MS-DOS partition table and partitioned the drive into equal NTFS partitions. After this I used the Check feature which didn't report any errors.

The next step was to check it in the Windows 2000 Server environment of my old desktop computer and although chkdsk (with no option switches) didn't report any bad sectors it indicated a problem with the file system. So, I reformatted the partitions to NTFS again, within the Windows 2000 Server environment, in case there was something wrong with the way GParted created NTFS partitions and this time everything was ok.

So, the drive is looking clean at the moment. Maybe it was just a File System corruption that caused some Sectors to be marked as bad. However, I will be partitioning it so that the root partition "covers" what was the faulty area. According to MHDD the bad LBA was occurring at around 8GB. The remaining space will be used for the SWAP partition and a Data partition and maybe a Home partition.

Given that the Hard Drive is not an Advanced Format drive and GParted creates blocks of 4k for ext4, would it be better to format the partitions from the Command Line to specify a Block Size of 512K?

mkfs.ext4 has options for both block-size and cluster-size. I was thinking that for this drive that maybe better performance could be obtained by using a Block Size of 512K because that is the "native" size for the drive. Is this correct? What Cluster Size should be specified if any?

Thanks, Michael.

User avatar
lucky9
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 11380
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:54 am

Re: Most Efficient way to Remaster an ISO?

#17 Post by lucky9 » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:17 pm

My understanding is that a 4K sector is faster, however for an older HDD it needs to use virtualization to use 512 Byte sectors. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Format#512e

I'd probably use 512 Byte sectors if it were me. I'd just prefer a native solution. The difference in speed would not be a factor for me.
Yes, even I am dishonest. Not in many ways, but in some. Forty-one, I think it is.
--Mark Twain

Post Reply

Return to “Software / Configuration”