Can older computers load extensions from a USB drive without BIOS support?

[Guy]

Edit - Conclusion

It seems that some older computers can load extensions from a usb drive, and others can't. If you use an older computer, you can try, to see if yours can.


The original post.

This issue has been raised on another topic. So it would be interesting to hear from others.

We know extensions can be loaded from a usb drive during start up on a newer computer with bios support for usb drives.

For those who have an older computer without bios support for usb drives, can your computer load extensions from a usb drive during startup?

A simple way to test this is as follows:

Copy your entire tce directory to a usb drive. You can leave the original as it is.

There is no need to modify your existing installation, except for boot options.

Create another entry in Grub or other bootloader. Change the tce directory to the usb drive and add waitusb=10. So, for example, you may have tce=sda1 waitusb=10. If it does not work, you may try a number greater than 10.

Connect the usb drive to the computer and boot.

Does your computer load the extensions from the usb drive?

Tell us a bit about the type of computer, and what boot loader you are using.

You can then remove the usb drive, and delete the Grub or other bootloader entry, to return your installation to how it was before doing this.

I repeat, only those who have an older computer without bios support for usb drives.

This can also be done running Tiny Core from a CD.

I am interested in hearing from those who actually try this. Not those who speculate about what should happen in theory.

[maro]

guy: I think your question is not precise enough (if not to say misleading).

Granted there will be older computers where the BIOS does not support the booting from a USB pendrive (or USB hard disk). Nevertheless if the kernel is able to work with the USB controller on the motherboard it should be able to utilise extensions (and backup files) stored on the USB device. It just means that the booting of TC itself (i.e. execution of the boot loader which then loads the kernel and the initrd, followed by the hand over of controll from the boot loader to the kernel) has to be provided via a non-USB device method (e.g. CD-ROM, or some form of a hard disk).

I'm pretty sure that my 10 year old DELL Lattitude CPx (500MHz PIII, 256MB, USB 1.1) qualifies for this category: It allows to boot from CD-ROM and with a USB pendrive set up to hold some extensions. In all honesty it's so old that some DMA related error messages have forced me to remove the hard disk and manually eject the CD-ROM as soon as the boot loader has done it's job. I figure the multiple 'autoscan' function calls are triggering those DMA related issues. OTOH the CPU is so slow that I sometimes did not even need to use 'waitusb=5'. That means that the USB pendrive was recognised early enough in the boot process so that the extensions could be loaded even without this otherwise critically important boot code.

[Guy]

How would you word the question?

[maro]

guy: I believe the point is that older computers exists that dont support booting from a USB pendrive. Nevertheless under the condition that the USB controller is supported by the OS they may very well work as storage devices.

AFAIK the BIOS is only required for the very early boot loader phase (basically to get the boot loader loaded). As soon as the boot loader is working the BIOS will be "sidelined" and its USB support capabilities (or lack thereof) does not play any further role. Look at the modules available for GRUB2 to see how far the boot loaders have come in terms of what a modern one can support.

The question should in my view stress whether the BIOS supports booting from USB as the all the rest is more in the hands of the boot loader or the OS under test (i.e. TC).

[thane]

FWIW, for over a year I ran TCL on a Compaq Deskpro EN that didn't support booting from a USB (and for the latter part of that time had a dead hard drive). I was booting TCL off read-only CD and had the extensions and backup file on a USB stick. The only problems were that it was USB 1.0, so booting and shutdown were somewhat slow (but not intolerable), and the video was a little slow for Flash.

[Guy]

maro

I have tried loading extensions from a usb drive on a computer without bios support for usb drives, and found that extensions are not loaded.

Other people say it works for them.

I am trying to determine what makes the difference.

Is it the motherboard?

Is it the bootloader?

[maro]

guy: I believe there is no such thing as "USB support by BIOS", but rather a question whether a BIOS supports booting from USB or not. As pointed out now multiple times the BIOS capabilites after the very first second of the boot process should have next to no bearing on the other components (e.g. boot loader or OS).

Surely having a "crappy motherboard" or an "incompetent boot loader" wont help in your quest. But as the Linux kernel over the years has learned to support pretty much any type of hardware and as alternatives exists for the latter chances are that "USB support by BIOS" is maybe just a misnomer.

OTOH there are several methods of booting from USB (see the 'usbinstall' script as an example of supporting those variations). So if a BIOS supports booting from USB it might does so only for one particular method (and not for all the others). Likewise not all USB pendrives might support all possible methods. So one is left to find out for oneself a suitable combination.

Nevertheless my point is that having a USB connector on a even an older system should allow with a high degree of probability the support of extension (and backup) storage on a USB storage device, but not automatically support to boot from the same.

[Guy]

Nevertheless my point is that having a USB connector on a even an older system should allow with a high degree of probability the support of extension (and backup) storage on a USB storage device, but not automatically support to boot from the same.

There are some computers where it does not work.

I am trying to find out, what makes the difference.

[gerald_clark]

Perhaps uhci vs ohci devices.

[Guy]

More information

On those computers which cannot load extensions from a usb drive, the usb drive is not detected while Tiny Core is started. It does not matter how long you wait. However, if connected after starting Tiny Core, it is detected.

From memory, I think the same thing happens with other Linux distros.

[curaga]

Never heard of that before, an usb chipset that does not support coldplug. It's very much possible though, the early ones were rather quirky. If this is an hardware issue then, I don't think there's anything TC can do.

[Guy]

I don't expect TC to do anything. Newer computers don't have this issue. As time goes on, the older computers will no longer be used. So the issue will resolve itself.

I made the comment on another post, that some computers cannot load extensions from a usb drive, in case someone finds it does not work for them. This started a debate. I just thought it would be interesting to get the views of others.

[tinypoodle]

guy: I believe there is no such thing as "USB support by BIOS", but rather a question whether a BIOS supports booting from USB or not.

This is not quite accurate.

There are in fact BIOS which could have USB options not supposed to be related to boot:
An example:

Legacy USB Support  [Enabled/Disabled]  (Enable support for Legacy Universal Serial Bus)

Over the years I have come across various user reports that playing with those configurations sometimes could solve various issues related to USB, especially in the case of quirky hardware (as already referred to by curaga) or of buggy BIOSes.

[tinypoodle]

Never heard of that before, an usb chipset that does not support coldplug. It's very much possible though, the early ones were rather quirky. If this is an hardware issue then, I don't think there's anything TC can do.

Indeed this was a first for me to hear as well.

One possible hope could lay in updating BIOS, if this is an option.

[tinypoodle]

Just for completion, as this has not been mentioned, I have also used a "cardbus to USB 2.0 ports" card with same results as onboard USB 1.1 port - just much faster of course.