Syslinux - Jan 2014 - USB boot problems on Gigabyte GA-M55Plus-S3G

In message <BLU0-SMTP557B92590B4CC34F8318088BB30 at phx.gbl>, 
Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since in all cases you get to see at least the Syslinux copyright 
>message, the problem doesn't seem to be related to whether your BIOS 
>can identify the USB disk and boot from it.
I can only agree.
>Some GA motherboards might identify some USB drives as "HDD",
instead
>of "USB-HDD". I would suggest pressing F8 during POST and double 
>check where exactly your USB drive is listed.
I suspect that you must mean F12 rather than F8.  On my specific motherboard,
F8 during POST does nothing, however F12 brings up a boot menu.

Anyway, in the F12 boot menu there is no clear indication of what thing
(or things) the BIOS thinks are or not present.  (What made you think
that there would be?)
>Regarding UBCD, it sounds like some conflicting path. From your 
>description, you should see a "boot:" prompt.
Yes, that does appear also.  But I have no idea what to enter there.

Is there something specific I should try?  /boot/syslinux ?
>But the original UBCD 
>includes its syslinux.cfg in '/boot/syslinux', a
"standard" location.
>So either you have a wrongly customized UBCD in your USB drive,
No, UBCD on my USB stick has not been customized in any way.  It's a
totally unmodified image that I downloaded.  And it boots and works
perfectly, with no trouble whatsoever, on multiple other systems that
I have here.
>or your BIOS is not booting from that specific UBCD drive.
>
>So, do you have other drives connected to this system?
No.   Zero.  Nada.  None.

I may not always be the sharpest pencil in the box, but I do know enough
to eliminate as many variables and potential sources of problems as
possible when trying to debug a problem like this.

(For the specific system in question, I only ever mount/attach actual
hard drives to the thing by inserting them into one of two externally
accessible hot swap racks.  There are -no- drives actually hard mounted
inside the tower case.  So you see, it is quite trivial for me to remove
all drives from this system for testing purposes, and I have done so
throughout all of my testing with these USB flash drives.)
>Do you have 
>Syslinux also installed to those other drives? Can you disconnect / 
>disable all other drives in this system (at least for testing 
>purposes)?
See above.  There are no other drives either contained in or connected
in any way to the system I am using for testing this stuff.
>Regarding Clonezilla Live, the latest version uses Syslinux 
>6.03-pre1, so you might be using an older release.
I probably am, however at this point I have no compelling reason to
believe that my results will be any different when/if I upgrade to a
slightly fresher Clonezilla.   (The version I'm using was the freshest
"stable" release available as of less than a month ago.)
>The "ldlinux.c32" 
>file should be also part of the Syslinux 6.03-pre1 installation. If 
>you see a (hidden) file named "ldlinux.sys"...
See?  I'm sorry.   I don't follow you.  Where should I be looking for
this file you are talking about, exactly?
>but you don't see the 
>corresponding (from the same Syslinux version) "ldlinux.c32", then
>you are probably not installing Syslinux correctly in that USB drive.
Hey!  I read a small amount already (as I was trying to research these
problems) about various version skew problems that people had, apparently,
created for themselves between the first level Syslinux thing and this
later stage ldlinux.c32 thing.  But if there are any such issues/problem
that are relevant to, or that pertain to the problems that _I_ have
described here, then *I* did not create them.  I do not hack or diddle
these tools that I have mentioned... Clonezilla, UBCD, or even OpenELEC
(yet)... in any way.  I just download the latest images that are meant
for installing on a USB flash drive, and then I just dd them to my USB
flash drives, or do whatever the standard install instructions tell me
to do.  I am not attempting to be clever.  I'm just doing exactly the
same things that everybody else... the great unwashed masses... are doing
with these tools.... just ploping them onto USB sticks and NOT customizing
them at all.  And as I say, they all work great *except* whn I'm trying
to boot them from this bleedin' *&%$%$#@ Gigabyte motherboard.
>As a remainder, all files under the /syslinux directory of your 
>Clonezilla USB drive should match the same version of Syslinux that 
>you installed as bootloader.
My hope and belief is that the maintainer/distributor of Clonezilla has
alread seen to it that this is the case.  Do we have any reason to suspect
otherwise?
>I would suggest downloading the latest Clonezilla Live release 
>available and using the "manual" method to install it in your USB 
>drive. Other methods are probably going to fail (by mixing different 
>versions of Syslinux).
I suppose that I can give that a try, but it seems like we are sort of
just shooting in the dark here.
>With regards to OpenELEC, my guess is that something similar to the 
>Clonezilla issue is going on.
Given that the failure messages are identical, I can only agree with
your supposition.

But the question remains... What exactly *is* going on here?
>In other words, review the method you are using to install Syslinux 
>in those USB drives;
See above.  

Given that I am not doing anything out of the ordinary, and just doing
as instructed when it comes to installing these things on USB drives...
the same as zillions of other users of these same tools... and given that
everything works just peachy with these USB sticks *except* when they are
plugged in to the Gigabyte motherboard, where does that leave us?
>and for whichever version of Syslinux you 
>install as bootloader in one drive, the necessary *.c32 modules 
>should match the same Syslinux version (including, if necessary, its 
>corresponding lib*.c32 files for 5.xx and newer Syslinux versions).
OK.  And how would I go about verifying that all those things are or
are not the case?

Please understand that I know nothing specific about SYSLINUX and friends.
Until now, I had no reason to even want to.

> 
> Anyway, in the F12 boot menu there is no clear indication of what thing
> (or things) the BIOS thinks are or not present.  (What made you think
> that there would be?)
> 
In some systems, in the BIOS F12 boot menu, when I have one internal 
SATA drive and one USB flashdrive connected, I could see them *both* 
under HDD, while under USB-HDD there is no device listed for the 
selection of the boot device.

I would suggest, just in case, to perform a cold boot with the USB 
drive already connected. At least for testing purposes.

BTW, not all USB ports behave the same. Try plugging your USB drive 
to a USB port that is directly welded to the mainboard (as opposed to 
those connected by an internal cable).

Regarding your BIOS version, I don't know whether "F15B" is a
"beta"
release(?). Perhaps a "stable" release behaves differently(?).
> >Regarding UBCD, it sounds like some conflicting path. From your 
> >description, you should see a "boot:" prompt.
> 
> Yes, that does appear also.  But I have no idea what to enter there.
> 
> Is there something specific I should try?  /boot/syslinux ?
> 
 
>From the syslinux boot prompt in UBCD you could try:
/boot/syslinux/config.c32 /boot/syslinux/syslinux.cfg /boot/syslinux/

(Yes, it is the same basic absolute path, three times, all in one 
single continue command prompt with one space character in between; 
once for config.c32, once for syslinux.cfg and once without any 
additional file.)

I don't know why syslinux.cfg would be correctly found in the same 
USB drive when plugged in to other systems but not in this one.
> 
> >Regarding Clonezilla Live, the latest version uses Syslinux 
> >6.03-pre1, so you might be using an older release.
> 
> I probably am, however at this point I have no compelling reason to
> believe that my results will be any different when/if I upgrade to a
> slightly fresher Clonezilla.   (The version I'm using was the freshest
> "stable" release available as of less than a month ago.)
> 
 
Recent (testing) Clonezilla versions include changes related to 
booting problems, so there are valid reasons to try the very latest 
version available. At the time I am writing this email, Clonezilla 
Live 2.2.1-22 is the latest available (at this moment, under 
(clonezilla_live_testing). This Clonezilla Live version uses Syslinux 
6.03-pre1.
> >The "ldlinux.c32" 
> >file should be also part of the Syslinux 6.03-pre1 installation. If 
> >you see a (hidden) file named "ldlinux.sys"...
> 
> See?  I'm sorry.   I don't follow you.  Where should I be looking
for
> this file you are talking about, exactly?
 
Probably under '/syslinux/' and/or under '/isolinux/' in the 
Clonezilla Live USB.

 <snip>
> 
> for installing on a USB flash drive, and then I just dd them to my USB
> flash drives, or do whatever the standard install instructions tell me
> to do.
Please avoid using any dd' method at this time. Also avoid any 
"multiboot"-related tool or "USB-drive-writing-tool".
Currently, most
of these "user-friendly" methods will fail with these particular 
tools (specially with openELEC and Clonezilla).
> 
> >As a remainder, all files under the /syslinux directory of your 
> >Clonezilla USB drive should match the same version of Syslinux that 
> >you installed as bootloader.
> 
> My hope and belief is that the maintainer/distributor of Clonezilla has
> alread seen to it that this is the case.  Do we have any reason to suspect
> otherwise?
Yes. That's why I am suggesting to test the very latest Clonezilla 
(wherever the "very latest" version would be located, under stable or 
under testing).
> 
> >I would suggest downloading the latest Clonezilla Live release 
> >available and using the "manual" method to install it in your
USB
> >drive. Other methods are probably going to fail (by mixing different 
> >versions of Syslinux).
> 
> I suppose that I can give that a try, but it seems like we are sort of
> just shooting in the dark here.
 
No "shooting in the dark". Please, at this time use the manual method 
only, with the very latest Clonezilla Live. Not dd', not Unetbootin, 
not Tuxbox, not LiLi. Please "clean up" the USB drive and then use 
only the *manual* method at this time. See 
http://clonezilla.org/liveusb.php .

Please let us know how it goes. Feedback is needed and appreciated.

Regards,
Ady.

Hi,

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Failed to load ldlinux.c32
> ERROR: No configuration file found
Looks like it is unable to adress some files.
Maybe a problem with partitioning ?

Does this happen with isohybrid ISO images too ?
E.g.:
 
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.3.0/i386/iso-cd/debian-7.3.0-i386-netinst.iso

It looks like Clonezilla and Ultimate Boot CD both prescribe
special installation procedures for USB stick.
isohybrids can be put onto stick just by e.g.: dd of=/dev/sdb
Make a backup of the stick if you later want to restore its
partitioning.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

> 
> It looks like Clonezilla and Ultimate Boot CD both prescribe
> special installation procedures for USB stick.
> isohybrids can be put onto stick just by e.g.: dd of=/dev/sdb
> Make a backup of the stick if you later want to restore its
> partitioning.
> 
 
The (recent yet not latest) versions of Clonezilla that used Syslinux 
5.xx will fail in some systems when writing the isohybrid image with 
dd to the USB drive. Latest Clonezilla Live images correct this 
problem (with Syslinux 6.03-pre1), among additional booting issues 
that were resolved in the very latest testing Clonezilla release.

Recent versions of UBCD use Syslinux 4.07, which will also fail in 
some systems when using dd' to write the isohybrid image to USB 
drives. Using the included scripts or the manual methods should avoid 
these issues.

In message <BLU0-SMTP145A44932CB6CC2DB4621568BB30 at phx.gbl>, 
Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there something specific I should try?  /boot/syslinux ?
>> 
> 
>>From the syslinux boot prompt in UBCD you could try:
>/boot/syslinux/config.c32 /boot/syslinux/syslinux.cfg /boot/syslinux/
>
>(Yes, it is the same basic absolute path, three times, all in one 
>single continue command prompt with one space character in between; 
>once for config.c32, once for syslinux.cfg and once without any 
>additional file.)
OK, thank you for being so precise in explaining what i should try.
I did not just try that, and the result was the following:

	Could not find kernel image: /boot/syslinux/config.c32
	boot:

(Sorry that I do not have better news in this case.)
>I don't know why syslinux.cfg would be correctly found in the same 
>USB drive when plugged in to other systems but not in this one.
Well, ya know, that makes two of us.
>Recent (testing) Clonezilla versions include changes related to 
>booting problems, so there are valid reasons to try the very latest 
>version available. At the time I am writing this email, Clonezilla 
>Live 2.2.1-22 is the latest available (at this moment, under 
>(clonezilla_live_testing). This Clonezilla Live version uses Syslinux 
>6.03-pre1.
OK, I have found this page:

   http://clonezilla.org/downloads/download.php?branch=testing

and I see that this says "Clonezilla live version: 2.2.1-22".  But now
what?  I want to do exactly the test(s) that you want me to do, so
please do elaborate.  My machines are all modern and 64-bit capable,
including the one containing the problematic Gigabyte motherboard, so
I'm assuming that I should be selecting the "amd64" option on the
above page, yes?

But then should I get the .iso file or the .zip file?  (Normally, I
would just fetch the .iso file, but elsewhere you advised that I do
a "manual" install... whatever the heck that means... and I want to
be sure that I am following your instructions to the letter, so
should I get the .iso or the .zip?

And more to the point, once I have it, which of the four different
install methods list on this page:

   http://clonezilla.org/liveusb.php

would you like me to use?

(Hummm... reading ahead, I guss that you want me to fetch the .zip file,
and then use the clonezilla install method titled "MS Windows Method B:
Manual".  Is that all correct?)
>> >The "ldlinux.c32" 
>> >file should be also part of the Syslinux 6.03-pre1 installation. If
>> >you see a (hidden) file named "ldlinux.sys"...
>> 
>> See?  I'm sorry.   I don't follow you.  Where should I be
looking for
>> this file you are talking about, exactly?
> 
>Probably under '/syslinux/' and/or under '/isolinux/' in the
>Clonezilla Live USB.
On my _current_ Clonezilla USB stick, there does indeed exist a file
called "ldlinux.sys".  It is present in tthe top-level directory.

What is the significance of the presence of that file?  Is the presence
pf this file causing the problem?  Should I simply remove it and try
again?
>Please avoid using any dd' method at this time.
OK.  Please feel free to elaborate on the reasons for this advice.  (I may
not understand all, or even very much of what you have to say, but it
might possibly be enlightening.)
>Also avoid any 
>"multiboot"-related tool or "USB-drive-writing-tool".
Currently, most
>of these "user-friendly" methods will fail with these particular 
>tools (specially with openELEC and Clonezilla).
I see.

Well, I am quite completely sure that I created my OpenELEC stick by
executing (under windows 7) the little .exe file that they distribute
(in their distribution .zip files) and that they tell you to use in
order to actually put OpenELEC onto a USB stick.  So if there are
indeed problems, even with that little tool, then yes, that might
perhaps go some way toward explaining the failure I saw when trying
to boot OpenELEC off a USB stick.  Keep in mind hoever that, as I
have been saying, the exact same USB sticks _do_ work perfectly
well on other systems I have here, in particular an older Intel Core 2
based laptop and an AMD E-450 based HTPC.  Those don't have any problems
with any of this stuff.  (I _could_ also try booting these sticks on
my main server system, which contains a not-quite-young-anymore ASRock
motherboard, and will, i the extra data point will be at all helpful.)
>> >As a remainder, all files under the /syslinux directory of your 
>> >Clonezilla USB drive should match the same version of Syslinux that
>> >you installed as bootloader.
>> 
>> My hope and belief is that the maintainer/distributor of Clonezilla has
>> alread seen to it that this is the case.  Do we have any reason to
suspect
>> otherwise?
>
>Yes. That's why I am suggesting to test the very latest Clonezilla 
>(wherever the "very latest" version would be located, under stable
or
>under testing).
OK.  Noted.  Thank you for explaining.
>> >I would suggest downloading the latest Clonezilla Live release 
>> >available and using the "manual" method to install it in
your USB
>> >drive. Other methods are probably going to fail (by mixing
different
>> >versions of Syslinux).
>> 
>> I suppose that I can give that a try, but it seems like we are sort of
>> just shooting in the dark here.
> 
>No "shooting in the dark". Please, at this time use the manual
method
>only, with the very latest Clonezilla Live. Not dd', not Unetbootin, 
>not Tuxbox, not LiLi. Please "clean up" the USB drive and then use
>only the *manual* method at this time. See 
>http://clonezilla.org/liveusb.php .
By "clean up" may I safely assume that if I dd a few megabytes worth
of
/dev/zero to the USB sticks, that will be sufficient for our purposes
here?
>Please let us know how it goes. Feedback is needed and appreciated.
Happy to help if I can.  I will attempt an install of Clonezilla
(testing) 2.2.1-22 via "manual" method, see what happens when I boot
the resulting stick on my Gigabyte system, and then I'll post results
here.

Should be shortly.

However I personally am still not hopeful, for the simple reason that,
as I menioned earlier, I normally have a perfectly good 64GB SSD in
the system in question (Gigabyte GA-M55Plus-S3G) and it is loaded up
with Windows 7 and normally mounted into a simple/trivial sATA hot-swap
bay.  That works just fine.  However when I remove that exact same SSD,
drop it into an external USB 3.0 2.5" drive case and _then_ try to boot
from it, that also chokes.  So it seems pretty clear to me that Gigabyte
has snafued something, perhaps so seriously so that even the best
SYSLINUX may not be able to overcome the (botched) BIOS firmaware.

But we'll see.


Regards,
rfg

In message <BLU0-SMTP145A44932CB6CC2DB4621568BB30 at phx.gbl>, 
Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
>Recent (testing) Clonezilla versions include changes related to 
>booting problems, so there are valid reasons to try the very latest 
>version available. At the time I am writing this email, Clonezilla 
>Live 2.2.1-22 is the latest available (at this moment, under 
>(clonezilla_live_testing). This Clonezilla Live version uses Syslinux 
>6.03-pre1.
>...
>Please avoid using any dd' method at this time...
>...
>... Please, at this time use the manual method ...
Alright, I have done exactly as you've asked, and I have meticulously
followed the instructions on the Clonezilla web site for "manual"
install to the letter.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether I perform Step #4 (i.e. running
the "makeboot.bat" script) while logged in as a user with Admin privs,
or under an ordinary user account... the instructions on the web site
neglect to say which is preferred... the first two lines printed by
the script, after hitting an initial key to accept that the process
will apply to the current (USB) drive, the first two lines that are
printed by the "makeboot.bat" script immediately thereafter are
quite entirely disconcerting:

	Accessing physical drive: Access is denied.
	Did not successfully update the MBR; continuing...

The lines printed after the above are entirely perplexing, given the
content of the above messages:

	~~~~~~~~~~ Congratulations ~~~~~~~~~~

	The hidden file ldlinux.sys has been installed
	Your D: drive should now be bootable.
	//NOTE// If your USB flash drive fails to boot (maybe buggy BIOS), try to use
"syslinux -sfmar D:".

	Press any key to exit this window!

Obviously, in addition to any/all other problems illustrated by the above
quoted messages, I need to head down now to my local Fry's Electronics
store and purchase a better keyboard.  The one I have doesn't have an
"any" key. :-)

(I assume that that last step suggested by the messages must be REALLY
exciting too!   Elsewise, why would it be followed by an exclamation mark!?!)

But seriously folks, what exactly is up with the messages above?  I do not
wish to be either rude or impertinent, however I do feel compelled to ask:
Under what curcumstances, exactly (and in what Universe, exactly) does it
make sense for a program... i.e. *any* program (or any script)... to issue
what looks, from where I am sitting, like not one but _two_ messages, clearly
saying that the program failed to do its intended job, and then, immediately
after that, extend "Congratulations" to the user, along with other,
quite
obviously contradictory messages, indicating the exact opposite, i.e. that
everything has gone entirely according to plan after all?

I have no idea who wrote "makeboot.bat", and I do not wish to offend
anyone,
either here or elsewhere, but I do feel compelled to say that my personal
experience with that script so far leads me to the belief that it could
stand some improvement.

In any case, back to the business at hand...

After having meticulously and carefully performed all steps under the
heading "MS Windows Method B: Manual" on the Clonezilla install
instruc-
tions page, and after having gotten the messages noted above, I nontheless
shut down Windows 7, removed the Windows 7 drive from the system, and then
powered the system down.  I then powered it up again with only the freshly
minted Clonezilla USB stick installed (into one of the rear USB sockets,
i.e. one which is directly on the motherboard).  The results were as
follows:

	SYSLINUX 6.03 CHS 6.03-pre1 ...

	Failed to load ldlinux.c32
	Boot failed: please change disks and press a key to continue.

Allow me to say that I _do_ understand that with these kinds of boot-time
things there are or may be certain hard limits on the sizes of the
programs implementing the various phases of the bootstrap process, and
that such limits might very well acount for a certain brevity when it
comes to the various error messages that may be produced by the various
programs involved.  I am also cognizant of the fact that I personally
have not earned the right to comment on any of this, due to me not having
invested any of my own sweat into the production of these helpful tools.
Nontheless, I would like to offer the humble suggestion that the message
"Failed to load ldlinux.c32" could perhaps benefit from some
additional
elaboration and detail, specifically, either some verbage or, at the
very least, some attached numeric code which might further indicate the
nature and/or cause of the failure.  I cannot imagine how such additional
information would be harmful.
>Please let us know how it goes. Feedback is needed and appreciated.
I have done what I can along these lines for the time being.  But I
do think that I've had enough fun with this stuff for one day.  Perhaps
I'll read over the other messages posted in this thread tomorrow, and
if there are any other helpful tests that I can do I will see if I can
make time to do those tomorrow.

I do feel compelled to say however that the option of just simply getting
a different motherboard is looking more appealing all the time.  I'm not
entirely sure how much more of this fun I will really want to subject
myself to.


Regards,
rfg