[SOLVED] Can't install Kub. 22.04 on my large flash drive.

[RLynwood]

I think all partitions are established correctly, at least it looks that way. But when I get to the Manual set-up page, it shows an initial 1 Mb partition that does not show up in KDE Partition Manager, Gparted, or Disks. The combo box at the bottom of the Manual set-up page doesn't show an sda2 choice, which I believe is the right one to specify for making the boot partition.

I have two flash drives, a 32 GB one and a 128 GB one. The 128 is the one I want to be my interim drive,* and its the one I can't get to install. I had it working fine except that I thought the small partitions were not sized the way I wanted them. While intending to reinstall it and trying to install 22.04 on the 32 GB drive to learn how to get the partitions right, I accidentally installed the 22.04 on the 128 GB drive as well, wiping out all my settings. (I have no idea how I did that.) The 32 GB installation works fine; it boots every time, but I want the larger data storage area.

So I established partitions in the 128 that exactly matched the 32, but when I try to install 22.04 onto the 128, it always fails with a boot crash. I believe it's because of that 1 MB partition that it says is there preceding the 1 MB initial boot initial partition (two initial 1 MB partitions) but that none of the partition managers seems to see. So I don't know how to eliminate it so that the installer detects the 1-MB boot partition, which has the proper boot configuration, as the sdx2.

*By interim, I mean that I have what appears to be a major problem with my SSD, which, of course, is where my 22.04 should go. Before I get to that, however, I need daily access to the 'net and want to use 22.04. So I want to get a fully functional 22.04 on a drive big enough to function normally and hold my newly accumulated data, about 32 Gigs now. Then I can return the borrowed laptop and flash drive.

[jlittle]

If you have a problem with existing partitions that you don't want, you can write a new partition table to the device. Be warned, it's a quick way to destroy data, so make sure you get the device correct.

[RLynwood]

Thank you. Yes, I know that I can recreate the partition table and even all partitions. That isn't the problem. And I'm not worried about losing data; I have none. I'm trying to install the OS onto a freshly prepared drive. Please read my post carefully to understand the problem. However, I may have figured out the problem: I think I had the one wrong flag in that first partition.

But now I can't use my computer; it won't boot. I think it's the mainboard battery. It'll take time to get that fixed (gotta remove most of the box's guts to get to it, and I don't have the ability to do that).

[claydoh]

it shows an initial 1 Mb partition

probably NOT a partition. Extremely likely just some tiny amount of unusable "slack" space that is left over. I have these on almost all my drives, of any type.
Ignore it completely, unless it actually has a designation (sdc1,2,3....n)

[claydoh]

I also that we are doing this thing the Hard Way, or much harder than is necessary.

if the USB is temporary, does it really matter if you do custom partitioning at all?
I will be back shortly after a test.........

[RLynwood]

Hey, claydoh.
"probably NOT a partition." Maybe, but in repeated attempts to install 22.04, the installer keeps showing and describing a clearly defined 1 Mb partition ... and the installation keeps crashing on a boot error. Note my statement above that I may have had a wrong fs flag. Gonna check that next.

"Extremely likely just some tiny amount of unusable "slack" space that is left over." Possibly; I'll check that--after I get the computer itself bootable (see note about probably dead board battery).

"Ignore it completely, unless it actually has a designation (sdc1,2,3....n)" Failing memory, but I believe it did designate it as sdx (something), but not sure.

"I also that we are doing this thing the Hard Way, or much harder than is necessary." The answer to this would take too much space/time here now.

"if the USB is temporary," It's more like permanent-temporary. I intend it to be a portable computer, one I can plug into any computer and run, being able to collect & store data, hence the large size, and to use as a back-up on my computer if anything happened to my main OS again. But I'll have a built-in back-up OS (dual boot) when I get the SSD fully established.

[claydoh]

I regularly use USB-installed OS for various devices, even for long-term usage, the process should not be complicated.

I don't have a capture device, else I would demonstrate directly.
Am trying to replicate this in Virt-manager, but it chokes on me passing through my USB devices, maybe I will try virtualbox. Or just use my camera on the screen for real-world action.

[RLynwood]

"the process should not be complicated." Yes, I know. I even have a perfectly good 22.04 installed on a 32 Gb flash drive, and I installed 22.04 on this large drive before. Everything was fine except for my finickiness, wanting the partitions to be most efficiently sized. Then ... that's when I developed this problem--just with this drive. That's why I've used the smaller one as an example to compare the problem drive with to find the problem.

Not having my computer available now, I'll have to work with this about 10-year-old laptop, which labors under the burden of heavy computing (typical for me), taking a long time to do almost anything. Now I'm going to shut this laptop down and reboot into the Live 22.04 & see if I still have the same problem. That means it'll be offline for a while.

[claydoh]

Just doing a basic OS install, no manual anything:



As long as the drive names match, as shown, you should be all set to go. No manual partitioning needed.

[RLynwood]

Thanks for the effort. I know that very well; I've done it. You're right, that is dead easy. But, though it doesn't make sense normally, I want the installation to use btrfs.

[claydoh]

In any case, my method only works if you remove the main hard drive, something I missed.

As to btrfs, I am not sure if this is a good choice for a USB flash drive. For an external SSD or HDD, sure, but USB thumb drives are not at all ideal for running an OS to begin with, taken from many years experience at doing so. Lifespan isn't great normally, and iirc Btrfs *may* be a bit harder on these, ootb.

Just my 2 cents.

[RLynwood]

Yes, I looked up instructions for installing an Ubuntu on a flash drive and learned that I had to unplug the power cords to all my internal drives & did.
Your advice that btrfs may shorten the flash drive's life sounds cogent, something I hadn't considered. With uncommon use, however, shouldn't it last three years? After I get my SSD back running properly, I shouldn't need that flash drive almost ever. It would just be there in case I need it.

[claydoh]

however, shouldn't it last three years?

I doubt it, even using ext4 and a high-quality stick (Samsung), unless usage is very uncommon.
A couple years, I can see.
but if it is a Sandisk or a no-name, maybe months.

Samsung Fits have lasted me about 2 years of light-ish usage, *everything* else I have tried out over the past 5 or 6 years lasted weeks (every Sandisk) to a few months.
Probably well over a dozen random sticks.
Not just corruptions, but bad blocks, becoming unreadable/writable and unrecoverable and useless.
A 20 dollar nvme stick in a 15-20 dollar enclosure is the best choice for longevity, or a normal 20 dollar SATA SSD in a usb enclosure.

But Flash drives, you might want to have extras, and maybe clone them and/or back them up regularly.

[RLynwood]

Well, usage would be very uncommon. I've had the sticks I've had for years--I got them at different times--but, of the four oldest ones I have, all 4GB, probably 15 years old, maybe older, only one has gone bad, and that only recently. But I almost never used them. So I can guess that you use those drives like a regular computer, reading/writing to them commonly, as with a storage device.
Certainly, none of mine is a Samsung, all SanDisk or other. The newest, only a few months old, is a 128 GB SanDisk, the one I have installed 22.04 on and now am trying to again.
"Not just corruptions, but bad blocks, becoming unreadable/writable and unrecoverable ...." Precisely my reason for wanting to use btrfs.

I don't see anything suiting your description readily on the 'net, but your idea seems cogent and gives me pause to reconsider my strategy.
.

[claydoh]

It isn't the sticks, per se, it is the usage as an OS drive that kills them quicker. LOTS of read-write cycles. The ages I am mentioning are specifically from OS drive usage - I run Linux on Chromebooks very often, and they don't often have replaceable onboard storage, so USB sticks are a good, non-bulky go-to.
They just don't tend to last very long as OS drives.
(sdcards are even worse)
Just something to keep in mind. A spare with a clone of the working stick is a good idea (clonezilla, etc)

"Not just corruptions, but bad blocks, becoming unreadable/writable and unrecoverable ...." Precisely my reason for wanting to use btrfs.

brtrfs won't restore broken stuff.


https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-MUF-1...dp/B07D7PDLXC/
I have used three of these. Lost one after over a year's usage as an OS drive.
A second lasted a bit over 2 years. I traveled overseas with this one.
I am on a third one, but have not used it often as an OS drive. It is about 3 years old.
EVERY sandisk -at least 6 of varying price and size - have died quickly as OS drives. YMMV, I am sure.
Random no-names have been better. I have had bad luck with Sandisks, maybe.

The Samsung are quite a lot faster at read/write speeds than other brands, particularly if you have good USB3.1 ports.

.