”Failed to install the file. The file is probably corrupted. (13)"


Recommended Posts

Coming from DSM_DS918+_25426 (jun loader 1.04b, under ESXi 7.0.2), I replaced all my 6 hard drives with new ones, as many exhibited bad sectors. So, put new disk in, found disk station, and loaded the DSM 6.2.3-25426.pat file again. But at ca. 65% system says ”Failed to install the file. The file is probably corrupted. (13)" Googling about it, ppl are suggesting VID/PID is may be incorrect, but those haven't changed at all, and the system is booting.

 

I don't understand this at all. All I did was replace my drives (with WD Red Plus ones). What is possibly going wrong here?

 

N.B. Synology is seeing my 50 MB boot disk too (created by VM). That was the case on my previous install too. I read that on 6.2.3, the trick to hide the boot disk from Synology doesn't work any more; but it didn't give me trouble before.

Edited by meimeiriver
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, meimeiriver said:

Synology is seeing my 50 MB boot disk too (created by VM)

It shouldn't be "created" by VM, you should be using it from the loader. Did you use a clean, fresh loader image file? 

Did you remember to select the GRUB ESXi option on boot?  If you use the default the img disk will be visible for install.

 

17 hours ago, meimeiriver said:

Googling about it, ppl are suggesting VID/PID is may be incorrect

This is irrelevant for a image file install

 

17 hours ago, meimeiriver said:

Synology is seeing my 50 MB boot disk too (created by VM). That was the case on my previous install too. I read that on 6.2.3, the trick to hide the boot disk from Synology doesn't work any more

That points back to an incorrect GRUB selection above.

The "trick" to hide the boot disk under ESXi has not changed. The boot disk is flagged incorrectly at bootup which is where FixSynoBoot script offers a solution. This is not a issue for the initial install and has nothing to do with whether the boot drive is visible on that install.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, flyride said:

 

It shouldn't be "created" by VM, you should be using it from the loader. Did you use a clean, fresh loader image file? 

Did you remember to select the GRUB ESXi option on boot?  If you use the default the img disk will be visible for install.

 

This is irrelevant for a image file install

 

That points back to an incorrect GRUB selection above.

The "trick" to hide the boot disk under ESXi has not changed. The boot disk is flagged incorrectly at bootup which is where FixSynoBoot script offers a solution. This is not a issue for the initial install and has nothing to do with whether the boot drive is visible on that install.

 

 

I wasn't able to install the DSM at all (so, no attaching a script for me). Fortunately, I just resolved the matter. :) Edited a new grub.cfg, with a different serial number, and voila, DSM would install again. Makes no sense to me, really (as my old disk set worked just fine), but it worked.

 

Yeah, wasn't sure about the visible boot disk, as Synology first said it wanted to format 7 drives (1 boot + 6 nas drives), so I figured it might trip over that extra disk. Glad to hear it has no bearing on anything (except visual), so I will add the script to hide it now. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, flyride said:

 

It shouldn't be "created" by VM, you should be using it from the loader. Did you use a clean, fresh loader image file? 

Did you remember to select the GRUB ESXi option on boot?  If you use the default the img disk will be visible for install.

 

For the record, I used this menu entry:

 

menuentry "DS918+ 6.2.1/6.2 VMWare/ESXI $VERSION" --class os {
        set img=
        savedefault
        loadlinux 918 sata
        loadinitrd
        showtips
}

 

The other 2 were for bare metal (not applicable to my ESXi situation). So I had removed those (as per I had read somewhere here).

Edited by meimeiriver
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meimeiriver said:

I wasn't able to install the DSM at all (so, no attaching a script for me). Fortunately, I just resolved the matter. :) Edited a new grub.cfg, with a different serial number, and voila, DSM would install again. Makes no sense to me, really (as my old disk set worked just fine), but it worked.

 

I think you were trying to reuse an boot loader image file.  When an install occurs, the loader itself is modified.  So if you are trying to do a clean install, you need to extract a clean, new copy of the loader and edit grub.cfg as appropriate.  Editing the serial number probably did the same thing, although it would not have worked if you were trying to install an older version than had been encountered by that loader before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, flyride said:

 

I think you were trying to reuse an boot loader image file.  When an install occurs, the loader itself is modified.  So if you are trying to do a clean install, you need to extract a clean, new copy of the loader and edit grub.cfg as appropriate.  Editing the serial number probably did the same thing, although it would not have worked if you were trying to install an older version than had been encountered by that loader before.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. Didn't realize you needed a fresh loader. The changed serial number likely wasn't even necessary, but I simply 'accidedntally' took a new loader to try again with a different serial number.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, flyride said:

 

I think you were trying to reuse an boot loader image file.  When an install occurs, the loader itself is modified.  So if you are trying to do a clean install, you need to extract a clean, new copy of the loader and edit grub.cfg as appropriate.  Editing the serial number probably did the same thing, although it would not have worked if you were trying to install an older version than had been encountered by that loader before.

 

If I may call on you once more, what if I want to install DSM 6.2.3-25426, Update 3 now? It appears to be synology_apollolake_918+.pat  (37,914 KB), and looks to be an 'incremental' patch, rather than a full DSM. Can I install that right over it, or will that hose my machine as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as your synoboot device is accessible (verify it per the synoboot script page), you should be able to install the update 3 file as you cite, via the GUI.  If for some reason it does not work, it will just be rejected and your system should not be damaged.

 

https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/37652-dsm-623-25426-update-3/

https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/28183-running-623-on-esxi-synoboot-is-broken-fix-available/

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, flyride said:

As long as your synoboot device is accessible (verify it per the synoboot script page), you should be able to install the update 3 file as you cite, via the GUI.  If for some reason it does not work, it will just be rejected and your system should not be damaged.

 

https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/37652-dsm-623-25426-update-3/

https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/28183-running-623-on-esxi-synoboot-is-broken-fix-available/

 

Not that it hugely matters, but the surplus disk remains visible in Storage Manager (after reboot, before you ask); and is called 'Vmware Virtual Sata Hard Drive, 16 GB.' And script was placed correctly:

 

admin@Xpenology:/$ cd /usr/local/etc/rc.d/
admin@Xpenology:/usr/local/etc/rc.d$ ls -la
total 12
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Aug 21 20:33 .
drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 Aug 21 13:34 ..
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 2161 Aug 21 20:33 FixSynoboot.sh
admin@Xpenology:/usr/local/etc/rc.d$

 

Edited by meimeiriver
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is often a point of confusion.  The "surplus disk" is exactly that, a test disk that is often cited in ESXi installation tutorials, and it properly being offered to use as a possible storage device. If you aren't using your 16GB virtual test disk, just delete it.

 

The loader is a 50MB image and should not be visible (although there are ways of defeating that too even if synoboot is built correctly).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, flyride said:

This is often a point of confusion.  The "surplus disk" is exactly that, a test disk that is often cited in ESXi installation tutorials, and it properly being offered to use as a possible storage device. If you aren't using your 16GB virtual test disk, just delete it.

 

The loader is a 50MB image and should not be visible (although there are ways of defeating that too even if synoboot is built correctly).

 

Now my NAS won't start up any more. ;( "Operating system not found" That was some bad advice.

 

EDIT: I had to redo the entire process, and now my NAS is working again, but shows the extra 50MB drive (instead of the 16G one). I'm not going to mess with it any more. :)

Edited by meimeiriver
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, meimeiriver said:

That was some bad advice.

 

You specifically said it was surplus.  Did you not set up any other disks in a storage pool?  If not, it wasn't surplus.

 

Us folks giving advice only can go with the information we are given.  If you want more handholding then you'll need to post a lot more information about what's happening in your system.  In any case, many have gone before you and made things work as expected.  Sorry for your inconvenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, flyride said:

 

You specifically said it was surplus.  Did you not set up any other disks in a storage pool?  If not, it wasn't surplus.

 

Us folks giving advice only can go with the information we are given.  If you want more handholding then you'll need to post a lot more information about what's happening in your system.  In any case, many have gone before you and made things work as expected.  Sorry for your inconvenience.

 

I'm sorry I said that. It looked surplus in Storage Manager, as just a spare 16 GB VM drive, but appeared vital after all. Not sure what's going on. Now, only 50 MB disk is listed as 'uninitialized,' and the 16 GB drive is gone. I'm going to leave it like that. :) I should simply count my blessings, and leave well enough alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.