I downloaded the CentOS-6.5-x86_64-bin-DVD1.iso and CentOS-6.5-x86_64-bin-DVD12.iso and tried to burn them to a DVD but both Windows 7 and IOS
( MacBook Pro ) do not recognize these as valid isos.
What am I doing wrong?
15 thoughts on - Iso Burn
What are their hashes?
Here are some hash values of the files I’m sharing in a bittorrent client:
There are currently over 1000 other people sharing the CentOS-6.5-x86_64-bin-DVD1to2.torrent, too. So, do the hashes of your files match those?
I did not check the hash values.
How do you do that?
Sent from my iPad
Since you are writing the DVD in Windows OS, I assume you don’t have any Linux boxes !. I am not sure what are the checksum verify utilities will work perfectly in Windows . However, from a quick internet search, I could find an official tool from Windows – http://www.microsoft.com/en-in/download/details.aspx?id533 – which supports MD5 ans SHA1 . Please match the MD5 of your downloaded CentOS DVD
with http://mirror.nbrc.ac.in/CentOS/6.5/isos/x86_64/md5sum.txt .
Hope that helps .
If you can find a Linux box, get to command line
sha256sum
compare output with provided hash
if they match, burn the dvd with the following command
cdrecord -v -sao
If the hash values do not match, download the ISO again, preferably using a download tool. It is better not to use the browser to download big files like the ISO,
– rejy (rmc)
Cliff,
I have recently faced checksum issue (i.e. checksum didn’t match) when I
had downloaded the ISO using browser (Firefox). I would say my internet connection is fairly good. After I faced issue with browser, “wget”
worked fine for me.
-Lala
Rejy, for the record, I’ve downloaded many ISOs and other large files using my browser (Chrome) for many years. While years ago it was problematic to use the browser to download large files, it seems to me that that is not so these days. Of course if you have a very slow or bad connection, it may not work, and this is where download tools come into their own. But I think that for most people, browsers will work OK. The real advantage of the download tools is that a transfer is usually restartable and that is not always possible with a browser download.
Cheers,
Cliff
Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
… make sure not to use the defective “fork” from Debian that is unmaintained since May 2007 and that does not really support to write DVDs.
J
Try using the command line tool ‘proz’ from the package prozilla. It works good, is re-startable, and much configurable.
rejy (rmc)
Yep, it works OK for me, but it may not work for the guy down the road. I
don’t have an issue with that. But for most people it just works fine.
On the CentOS desktop I use gHasher, but you’d need to enable the RPMForge repo to install that program.
I thought I’d try HashCalc in WINE, but made the mistake of telling WINE
to go ahead and install Mono… it appears to be about 20% done downloading that package from SourceForge now. :|
Well that didn’t take as long as I thought it would… HashCalc does run fine in WINE, too. :)
Darr247, that is verging on the bizarre! Why on earth… The only reason I
can think of doing that is “because it was there”.
Cheers,
Cliff
Because I couldn’t find a GUI hasher in the stock repos (gHasher is in RPMForge).
Why install a desktop and then use only command line programs?
editing odt files comes to mind, I’m sure most people would agree that it’s easier with a GUI… ;-) but for a checksum?? well whatever, everyone can use what they’re comfortable with…
OIC. The partial answer to that is that the command line programs in general give you more control and often have more features. Often the GUI
programs are simply front ends to the command line ones. Command line ones can be scripted. The usual GUI versus command line arguments.
Though if it is a choice between command line and GUI running under Wine, you are adding an extra layer that isn’t needed (and using up cycles and heating the environment). Also, I’m not suggesting that you should *only*
use command line programs.
Anyway, this is now so far off topic, it’s not funny. Mea culpa.
15 thoughts on - Iso Burn
What are their hashes?
Here are some hash values of the files I’m sharing in a bittorrent client:
CentOS-6.5-x86_64-bin-DVD1.iso (4,467,982,336 bytes)
MD5 – 83221db52687c7b857e65bfe60787838
SHA1 – 32c7695b97f7dcd1f59a77a71f64f2957dddf738
SHA256 – c796ab378319393f47b29acd8ceaf21e1f48439570657945226db61702a4a2a1
CentOS-6.5-x86_64-bin-DVD2.iso (1,284,395,008 bytes)
MD5 – 91018b86ca338360bc1212f06ea1719f SHA1 – 25e5de362ba6c75d793dbeb060b27ba1865cb5df SHA256 – afd2fc37e1597c64b3c3464083c0022f436757085d9916350fb8310467123f77
There are currently over 1000 other people sharing the CentOS-6.5-x86_64-bin-DVD1to2.torrent, too. So, do the hashes of your files match those?
I did not check the hash values.
How do you do that?
Sent from my iPad
Since you are writing the DVD in Windows OS, I assume you don’t have any Linux boxes !. I am not sure what are the checksum verify utilities will work perfectly in Windows . However, from a quick internet search, I could find an official tool from Windows –
http://www.microsoft.com/en-in/download/details.aspx?id533 – which supports MD5 ans SHA1 . Please match the MD5 of your downloaded CentOS DVD
with http://mirror.nbrc.ac.in/CentOS/6.5/isos/x86_64/md5sum.txt .
Hope that helps .
If you can find a Linux box, get to command line
sha256sum
compare output with provided hash
if they match, burn the dvd with the following command
cdrecord -v -sao
If the hash values do not match, download the ISO again, preferably using a download tool. It is better not to use the browser to download big files like the ISO,
– rejy (rmc)
Cliff,
I have recently faced checksum issue (i.e. checksum didn’t match) when I
had downloaded the ISO using browser (Firefox). I would say my internet connection is fairly good. After I faced issue with browser, “wget”
worked fine for me.
-Lala
Rejy, for the record, I’ve downloaded many ISOs and other large files using my browser (Chrome) for many years. While years ago it was problematic to use the browser to download large files, it seems to me that that is not so these days. Of course if you have a very slow or bad connection, it may not work, and this is where download tools come into their own. But I think that for most people, browsers will work OK. The real advantage of the download tools is that a transfer is usually restartable and that is not always possible with a browser download.
Cheers,
Cliff
Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
… make sure not to use the defective “fork” from Debian that is unmaintained since May 2007 and that does not really support to write DVDs.
J
Try using the command line tool ‘proz’ from the package prozilla. It works good, is re-startable, and much configurable.
rejy (rmc)
Yep, it works OK for me, but it may not work for the guy down the road. I
don’t have an issue with that. But for most people it just works fine.
Cheers,
Cliff
I use HashCalc in Windows… http://www.slavasoft.com/hashcalc/index.htm that page says 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP, but empirically it works fine in Win7 x64, too.
On the CentOS desktop I use gHasher, but you’d need to enable the RPMForge repo to install that program.
I thought I’d try HashCalc in WINE, but made the mistake of telling WINE
to go ahead and install Mono… it appears to be about 20% done downloading that package from SourceForge now. :|
Well that didn’t take as long as I thought it would… HashCalc does run fine in WINE, too. :)
Darr247, that is verging on the bizarre! Why on earth… The only reason I
can think of doing that is “because it was there”.
Cheers,
Cliff
Because I couldn’t find a GUI hasher in the stock repos (gHasher is in RPMForge).
Why install a desktop and then use only command line programs?
editing odt files comes to mind, I’m sure most people would agree that it’s easier with a GUI… ;-) but for a checksum?? well whatever, everyone can use what they’re comfortable with…
OIC. The partial answer to that is that the command line programs in general give you more control and often have more features. Often the GUI
programs are simply front ends to the command line ones. Command line ones can be scripted. The usual GUI versus command line arguments.
Though if it is a choice between command line and GUI running under Wine, you are adding an extra layer that isn’t needed (and using up cycles and heating the environment). Also, I’m not suggesting that you should *only*
use command line programs.
Anyway, this is now so far off topic, it’s not funny. Mea culpa.
Cheers,
Cliff