Saturday, 10 April 2021

Virtualization Performance on an Intel NUC 11 Enthusiast Phantom Canyon NUC11PHKi7C


I've previously looked at Windows and Linux performance on the NUC11PHKi7C Enthusiast Phantom Canyon which is Intel’s latest NUC 11 flagship product specifically targeting gamers as it includes an NVIDIA RTX 2060 GPU.

One usage aspect I didn't test was virtualization and this brief article looks at the performance running VirtualBox and WSL2 on the NUC11PHKi7C and comparing it to Intel’s previous NUC with a discrete GPU: the NUC 9 Extreme Ghost Canyon.


Hardware Overview

For the NUC 9 Extreme I’ve using a NUC9i7QNX model and I purchased both the NUC11PHKi7C and NUC9i7QNX as barebone devices.

The NUC11PHKi7C has an Intel Core i7-1165G7 Tiger Lake processor which is a quad-core 8-thread 2.80 GHz processor boosting to 4.70 GHz and also includes an NVIDIA N18E-G1-B notebook graphics card which is a GeForce RTX 2060 mobile GPU. I’ve installed a 2TB M.2 2280 NVMe drive from addlink (S70) and 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR4 3200MHz memory from G.SKILL.

The NUC9i7QNX has an Intel Core i7-9750H Coffee Lake processor which is a hex-core 12-thread 2.60 GHz processor boosting to 4.50 GHz. I've installed a 2TB M.2 2280 NVMe drive from ADATA (XPG 8200 Pro), 64GB (2 x 32GB) of Team Group’s Team Elite DDR4 3200MHz memory and an EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO ULTRA GAMING GPU.


Software Overview

On each device I've installed Windows 10 Pro and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS as dual boot. On Windows I've enabled Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) version 2 and then installed Ubuntu 20.04 LTS Linux distribution for WSL. Then for each OS I've installed Oracle VM VirtualBox and created VMs of either Windows 10 Enterprise or Ubuntu 20.04 LTS as antithesis to the host OS. 


Installation Issues

Whilst there were no instalation problems with the NUC9i7QNX, the NUC11PHKi7C encountered a major issue. Initially for Ubuntu I was using the latest kernel (5.8.0-48-generic). Once Windows 10 Enterprise was installed in VirtualBox I noticed the VM occationally crashing for no apparent reason. However after downloading Passmark Performance Test version 10.1 the installation file refused to run:

I then had slightly more success in downloading and installing Passmark Performance Test version 9.0 however the application then refused to run:

but I did get Passmark Performance Test version 8.0 to both install and run:

however it subsequently crashed the VM.

After many reinstalls and web searching I discoverd that a bug for the crashing issue has already been raised: https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/20180 and that 'using a Linux kernel 5.4 does not exhibit the problem'. Switching to the 5.4.0-70-generic kernel did indeed solve all the problems including no more crashes and allowed the successful installation and execution of Passmark Performance Test version 10.1.


Virtualization on Windows

For a Windows baseline I ran the CPU tests from Passmark Performance Test natively in Windows:

NUC9i7QNX

NUC11PHKi7C

and interestingly despite having fewer cores the NUC11PHKi7C's Windows performance was 3% better than on the NUC9i7QNX.

The first virtualization comparison is against running Windows in VirtualBox on Ubuntu where I ran the same CPU tests using the Linux version of Passmark Performance Test:

NUC9i7QNX

NUC11PHKi7C

and this shows that hardware-wise the NUC11PHKi7C performance was 18% worse than the NUC9i7QNX. Software-wise virtualization on the NUC9i7QNX performed similarly to its native performance at only 1% lower however for the NUC11PHKi7C it was 19% worse.

For an Ubuntu baseline I ran the CPU tests from Passmark Performance Test Linux natively in Ubuntu:

NUC9i7QNX

NUC11PHKi7C

and this time the NUC9i7QNX Ubuntu performance was 1% better than on the NUC11PHKi7C.

The second virtualization comparison is against running Ubuntu in VirtualBox on Windows:

NUC9i7QNX

NUC11PHKi7C

which again hardware-wise shows the NUC11PHKi7C performing worse than the NUC9i7QNX but this time by only 12%. Virtualization however is markedly different with the NUC11PHKi7C being 47% worse than running Ubuntu natively and 42% worse for the NUC9i7QNX.

The final virtualization comparison is against WSL2:

NUC9i7QNX

NUC11PHKi7C

where the NUC11PHKi7C performed 4% better than the NUC9i7QNX hardware-wise. It was also the best for Ubuntu virtualisation with only a loss of 1% for the NUC11PHKi7C and a 6% loss for the NUC9i7QNX. It should also be pointed out that all of the results can be affected by test run margin of error.

The full results are summarised below:



Conclusion

Although this is very limited testing it suggests that from a hardware perspective VirtualBox on the 6-core 12-thread NUC9i7QNX performs better than on the 4-core 8-thread NUC11PHKi7C even though the native performance is similar. Virtualbox on Windows is much worse than on Ubuntu however the real winner is the performance of running Ubuntu under WSL2 as it is comparable to the native performance. Also of note is that Ubuntu performance is slightly better than Windows performance.


Donate

Please donate if you find these types of comparisons useful using the following link http://goo.gl/nXWSGf as everything helps with hardware costs.

Wednesday, 18 November 2020

Respun ISOs Questionnaire


I've just released a new version of 'isorespin.sh' that supports the respinning of the latest Ubuntu and Ubuntu flavoured 20.10 (Groovy Gorilla) ISOs.

However I don't have sufficient space available at the moment to post an example ISO similar to those posted here.

So I've created a questionnaire to ask which ISOs are required both now and in the future.

There are only three sections:

Types of ISOs
Distro releases
Future ISOs

containing a total of 10 questions requiring a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer and a final open-ended question.

Please complete the questionnaire to ensure your opinion and needs are heard.

Also if you find the script or ISOs useful please donate using the following link http://goo.gl/nXWSGf as everything helps with development costs.

Tuesday, 29 September 2020

Canonical have announced a new point release for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS - 16.04.7 (Xenial Xerus)

Canonical have released the seventh point release of Ubuntu 16.04 Long-Term Support (LTS) as Ubuntu 16.04.7.

I’ve respun the desktop ISO using my ‘isorespin.sh‘ script and created ISOs suitable for Intel Atom and Intel Apollo Lake devices:

Atom (-i ubuntu-16.04.7-desktop-amd64.iso --atom)
Apollo (-i ubuntu-16.04.7-desktop-amd64.iso --apollo)


Downloading Note

After downloading an ISO file it is recommended to test that the file is correct and safe to use by verifying the integrity of the downloaded file. An error during the download could result in a corrupted file and trigger random issues during the usage of the ISO.

The program 'md5sum' is designed to verify data integrity using the MD5 (Message-Digest algorithm 5) 128-bit cryptographic hash. The MD5 calculation gives a checksum (called a hash value), which must equal the MD5 value of a correct ISO.

First open a terminal and go to the correct directory to check a downloaded ISO. Then run the command 'md5sum <ISO>' for example:
md5sum linuxium-atom-ubuntu-16.04.7-desktop-amd64.iso
'md5sum' should then print out a single line after calculating the hash:

e1c5c463c3d2078f7a26d65472b59973  linuxium-atom-ubuntu-16.04.7-desktop-amd64.iso

Compare the hash (the alphanumeric string on left) from your output with the corresponding hash below. If both hashes match exactly then the downloaded file is almost certainly intact. However if the hashes do not match then there was a problem with the download and you should download the file again.


ISO 'md5sum' hashes

e1c5c463c3d2078f7a26d65472b59973  linuxium-atom-ubuntu-16.04.7-desktop-amd64.iso
ee3367e767d2c0938cc12776d5cf288d  linuxium-apollo-ubuntu-16.04.7-desktop-amd64.iso


Please donate if you find these ISOs useful.

Saturday, 26 September 2020

'BootHole' implications for 'isorespin.sh'

 

(Credit: https://eclypsium.com/2020/07/29/theres-a-hole-in-the-boot)

When it was discovered that GRUB2 contained various vulnerabilities that would allow UEFI Secure Boot to be bypassed and which became known as the “BootHole” vulnerability (CVE-2020-10713), the recommendation was that all operating systems using GRUB2 with Secure Boot must release new installers and bootloaders. 

I reviewed 'isorespin.sh' at that time as one of it's key features is the option to add a GRUB2 bootloader to allow ISOs to boot on the many Intel devices limited by their BIOS requiring a 32-bit bootloader to boot a 64-bit OS.

My initial 'fix' was based around Ubuntu's response by recompiling and adding the latest fixed GRUB2 bootloader from 'groovy' (Ubuntu 20.10) and let the Ubuntu package manager 'apt' install the appropriate GRUB2 binaries to the ISO whilst being respun.

This initially worked, however after receiving what can only be described as some abusive 'hate' email from a user complaining that 'isorespin.sh' fails when installing the 32-bit binaries, I investigated and found that Canonical had effectively removed the earlier 32-bit GRUB2 packages with vulnerabilities.

The original 'isorespin.sh' process was to download the 32-bit GRUB2 packages whose version matched the 64-bit GRUB2 packages in the ISO and update the relevant package file with the details of these packages. However in Canonical's process when a package is replaced by a newer version at some point older versions get archived so the 'isorespin.sh' download process needs to perform the download from the archive location. At this point the package information is still typically available in the package manager's cache so it is still possible to update the relevant package file.

But in order to add the other functionality in 'isorespin.sh' such as updating the kernel or installing a package as part of respinning an ISO it is also necessary to update the package manager's cache. The issue that "BootHole" subsequently created for 'isorespin.sh' was that because the cache was now updated, the earlier versions of the GRUB2 packages with the vulnerabilities were (obviously) no longer included to prevent them from being selected and installed. The consequence was that because the downloaded earlier versioned 32-bit GRUB2 packages were no longer supported, when they were further processed either by 'isorespin.sh' or as part of ISO installation, errors occurred.

Part of the problem in fixing these errors was wanting to mimic the original ISO's ability to be installed either with or without a network connection and also address the "BootHole" vulnerability as part of respinning the ISO. A new issue was encountered because by simply downloading the latest and therefore fixed 32-bit GRUB2 packages left their package dependencies untouched. This leads to package incompatibility when trying to install these later versioned packages.  

To address this I've made the decision to continue to download the 32-bit GRUB2 packages whose version matches that of the ISO thereby keeping the integrity of the ISO. However in recognising that any package in the ISO's pool structure could be superseded by security updates I also then ensure that all of the pool packages are updated to their respective current version at time of respinning the ISO. This also means that their versions are reflected in the ISO's package manager's cache. Finally to correct the GRUB2 package dependencies I also update any GRUB2 packages currently installed in the ISO's filesystem.

Whilst this addresses the vulnerabilities caused by "BootHole" it does mean that if the Ubiquity installer installs other packages from the pool structure it may still result in package dependency issues. The workaround if this occurs is to either individually update the affected packages when respinning the ISO or use the '--dist-upgrade' option to upgrade all installed packages.

This newest version (8.6.4) is now available from 'isorespin.sh'. 

Please donate if you find the script useful using the following link http://goo.gl/nXWSGf as everything helps with development costs.


Friday, 4 September 2020

Canonical announces new point releases - Ubuntu 20.04.1 and 18.04.5


Canonical have released both the first point release of Ubuntu 20.04 Long-Term Support (LTS) as Ubuntu 20.04.1 and the fifth point release of Ubuntu 18.04 Long-Term Support (LTS) as Ubuntu 18.04.5.

I’ve respun the desktop ISOs using my ‘isorespin.sh‘ script and created ISOs suitable for Intel Atom and Intel Apollo Lake devices:

Atom (-i ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso --atom)
Apollo (-i ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso --apollo)
Atom (-i ubuntu-18.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso --atom)
Apollo (-i ubuntu-18.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso --apollo)

I've also respun the 'Focal Fossa' desktop ISO with the '--server' option to create a pseudo server ISO suitable for Intel devices with a 32-bit bootloader:

Server (-i ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso --server)

Also announced are the official 20.04.1 flavours of Ubuntu including Lubuntu which I've also respun to created an ISO suitable for Intel Atom devices:

Atom (-i lubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso --atom)


Downloading Note

After downloading an ISO file it is recommended to test that the file is correct and safe to use by verifying the integrity of the downloaded file. An error during the download could result in a corrupted file and trigger random issues during the usage of the ISO.

The program 'md5sum' is designed to verify data integrity using the MD5 (Message-Digest algorithm 5) 128-bit cryptographic hash. The MD5 calculation gives a checksum (called a hash value), which must equal the MD5 value of a correct ISO.

First open a terminal and go to the correct directory to check a downloaded ISO. Then run the command 'md5sum <ISO>' for example:
md5sum linuxium-atom-ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso
'md5sum' should then print out a single line after calculating the hash:

5157b92b64ac5a9a0b69c8d27888c739  linuxium-atom-ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso

Compare the hash (the alphanumeric string on left) from your output with the corresponding hash below. If both hashes match exactly then the downloaded file is almost certainly intact. However if the hashes do not match then there was a problem with the download and you should download the file again.


ISO 'md5sum' hashes

5157b92b64ac5a9a0b69c8d27888c739  linuxium-atom-ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso
58b349bc95ac9f545a9480eda410b9f1  linuxium-apollo-ubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso
9b460cbc70020f117217bf96385d7a3f  linuxium-atom-ubuntu-18.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso
8231e6792cc3c8eed61dbe9b47563dc4  linuxium-apollo-ubuntu-18.04.5-desktop-amd64.iso
58b65aca1795562cf16471a45cdf35c8  linuxium-ubuntu-20.04.1-server-amd64.iso
4334930b9994f92a428cb158a7df6eff  linuxium-atom-lubuntu-20.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso


Please donate if you find these ISOs useful.

Saturday, 27 June 2020

Demonstrating the usage of 'ISO' tools with a real-life example

This is the final of three posts about my 'ISO' tools that include 'isorespin.sh', 'isocomparepkgs.sh' and 'isomimicpkgs.sh' scripts and in it I will demonstrates their usage with a worked example.

The example is about a testing PC that is currently running Ubuntu 18.04 LTS and now that Ubuntu 20.04 LTS has been released I'm considering how to upgrade it.

Normally Ubuntu does not prompt you to upgrade until the first point release becomes available (in this case 20.04.1) so in theory I could use the interim to plan however I want to upgrade now.

I'm considered two approaches to perform the upgrade. The first is the accepted way of upgrading where you simply run a command or use the Ubuntu update manager and upgrade the currently installed Ubuntu (i.e. 18.04 to 20.04). The second approach is arguably more of a migration where you backup your data then install a clean Ubuntu 20.04 and then restore your data which despite semantics is still effectively upgrading from 18.04 to 20.04.

Canonical provide good documentation on how to perform upgrades (e.g. How to upgrade from Ubuntu 18.04 LTS to 20.04 LTS today) however one point that must not be overlooked is whether your upgraded system will still have the same functionality of your existing one.

Like most users besides the applications or packages provided by the base installation I've also added packages and an upgrade will likely affect them. Unfortunately some packages are tied to a release version so maybe unavailable in a new releases or unsupported at best.

When you perform a upgrade traditionally you would remove obsolete packages in order to get a clean system and in part that is why planning for an upgrade is necessary.

The alternative approach of restoring your data after a fresh install also isn't just that simple as besides restoring your data you then need to install all the packages you added to the previous release albeit bearing in mind that not all packages may be available.

One key issue you face with the second approach is knowing what packages you have currently installed and of them which were manually installed subsequent to the initial base installation.

Looking at the second approach first, lets start by identifying the packages that will be required to be additionally installed.

On Debian and other dpkg-based distributions which includes Ubuntu you could try running the following command to gather this information:

grep " install" /var/log/dpkg.log

However this only works if the log file hasn't been rotation in which case you need:

grep " install" /var/log/dpkg.log /var/log/dpkg.log.1

But again this isn't that simple as older log files get compressed and worse still eventually deleted by log rotation (take a look at your '/etc/logrotate.d/dpkg' file) so it can't be used as a way to give you the entire history of your system.

As a simple alternative you can use my 'isocomparepkgs.sh' to compare the packages currently installed with those included in the installation ISO.

First I need to find out which ISO was used for the initial install as looking at '/etc/os-release' will only show the current version (in my case 18.04.4). Looking at '/var/log/installer/media-info' shows the release version (mine was 18.04) and release date (20180426). This indicates that the installation was done from the 'ubuntu-18.04-desktop-amd64.iso' ISO and this can be confirmed by comparing with the ISO's '.disk/info':

if [ "$(cat /var/log/installer/media-info)" == \
     "$(7z x -so ubuntu-18.04-desktop-amd64.iso .disk/info)" ]; then \
        echo is the ISO
else
        echo not the ISO
fi

However since its installation multiple 'apt upgrade' commands have upgraded my system from 18.04 to 18.04.4 so to ensure I make a true comparison I should first use 'isorespin.sh' to upgrade an 18.04 ISO the same way (as remember that point releases also introduce the HWE stack so an upgraded 18.04.4 is not exactly the same as a release 18.04.4 ISO).

Therefore I need to first simulate the elapsed upgrades with:

isorespin.sh -i ubuntu-18.04-desktop-amd64.iso -b GRUB-64 --dist-upgrade


after which I renamed the resultant ISO as 'dist-upgraded-ubuntu-18.04-desktop-amd64.iso' and then compare with my existing system:

isocomparepkgs.sh dist-upgraded-ubuntu-18.04-desktop-amd64.iso

The resultant 'isocomparepkgs.log' contains a list of packages that are only locally installed:


Even now it is not that simple as the list of packages is very long as it includes package dependencies including libraries but at least I have a list which could be used for the second approach.

This is where 'isomimicpkgs.sh' comes in useful. It will take that long list of packages and try and identify which core packages would achieve the same result if installed using 'apt' from Ubuntu sources as well as identifying those which require manual installation. So it is just a simple question of running:

isocomparepkgs.sh dist-upgraded-ubuntu-18.04-desktop-amd64.iso

and the log file shows:


A point to note here is that at some stage during using Ubuntu 18.04 I installed the 'lxde' package and later purged 'youtube-dl'. It also looks like a package dependency changed with respect to PHP as if I follow the suggested purge command exactly then I will also remove a package I want to keep ('phoronix-test-suite') again because of package dependencies (see my documentation on 'isomimicpkg.sh' for more details).

Another observation to make here is that three packages were identified as requiring manually installation.

So after verifying and running the appropriate 'apt install' and 'apt purge' commands I then renamed the resultant ISO as 'localised_18.04.iso' which is an ISO that effectively reflects my current environment (less chome, megasync and xnview).

Therefore if I was to adopt the second approach to upgrading from 18.04 to 20.04 I could use these two 'apt' commands as a basis of what to install over a clean 20.04 installation. Obviously some packages like 'linux-headers-4.15.0-99-generic' are not required whereas others like 'edid-decode' I may decide I no longer require and some packages like 'phoronix-test-suite' are just not available. But at least it is a starting point.

However the first approach was to upgrade 18.04 using the command line. Now that I have an ISO that mimics my current environment I can install this on a separate test box, run the upgrade and observe what happens without the need of lengthy data backups or restores. This way I can see what happens during the upgrade.

Or I can manually upgrade this ISO. However because of 'snaps' not working in an 'chroot' environment the upgrade is slightly more convoluted.

First I need to replace the 'bionic' repositories with the 'focal' ones:

isorespin.sh -i localised_18.04.iso -b GRUB-64 -r "--remove deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic main restricted" -r "--remove deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-security main restricted" -r "--remove deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ bionic-updates main restricted" -r "deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ focal main restricted" -r "deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ focal-security main restricted" -r "deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ focal-updates main restricted"

after which I rename the resultant ISO as 'interim_first_localised_pseudo_20.04.iso'. Then in theory I could perform a 'dist-upgrade' on this ISO however this fails due to a problem with the 'texlive-binaries' package. So instead I purge that package and then perform the upgrade:

isorespin.sh -i interim_first_localised_pseudo_20.04.iso -b GRUB-64 -e texlive-binaries --dist-upgrade

creating a new ISO I call 'interim_second_localised_pseudo_20.04.iso' and renaming the log file as 'interim_second_localised_pseudo_20.04.iso.isorespin.log'. I then add back in packages removed as a result of '-e texlive-binaries' with:

isorespin.sh -i interim_second_localised_pseudo_20.04.iso -b GRUB-64 -p '"'$(sed -n '/The following packages will be REMOVED/,/The following NEW packages will be installed/p;/The following NEW packages will be installed/q' interim_second_localised_pseudo_20.04.iso.isorespin.log | sed '1d;$d;s/\*//g' | xargs | sed 's/libsynctex1 //' | sed 's/libtexlua52 //')'"' --debug

which is a command derived through trial and error as a couple of the packages must be excluded in order to successfully add back the packages. I rename the final ISO as 'localised_pseudo_20.04.iso'.

At this point I can now mimic a standard Ubuntu 20.04 ISO from this localised pseudo 20.04:

isomimicpkgs.sh localised_pseudo_20.04.iso ubuntu-20.04-desktop-amd64.iso

to give me the 'apt' commands to create a localised Ubuntu 20.04 ISO from the localised pseudo Ubuntu 20.04 ISO:

$(grep "^isorespin.sh" isomimicpkgs.log | head -1) --debug
isorespin.sh -i linuxium-ubuntu-20.04-desktop-amd64.iso -b GRUB-64 -e "libxfce4util-bin python3-pyxattr rtmpdump youtube-dl"

which I triumphantly name 'localised_20.04_from_pseudo_20.04.iso'.

Finally I can compare this 'localised_20.04_from_pseudo_20.04.iso' with the earlier 'localised_pseudo_20.04.iso' to shows me the new packages installed as part of Ubuntu 20.04 and the packages I loose as part of the upgrade:


and importantly for me this includes loosing 'phoronix-test-suite'.

This still leaves me the option of manually installing my mimic'ed Ubuntu 18.04 testing environment and performing the upgrade the official Ubuntu way.  However before doing this I want to make sure that I create the most similar environment as possible prior to the upgrade so first I capture the full list of installed packages on Ubuntu 18.04 with:

dpkg-query -Wf '${db:Status-Abbrev}${Package}\n' | grep '^ii' | awk '{print $2}' | sort > source_locally_installed_packages.18.04

Now I can install my 'localised_18.04.iso' on the separate test box. Once installed I need to examine the installation log as 'ubiquity' (Ubuntu's installer) removes some packages it believes are not required:

grep -i removed /var/log/installer/syslog

and I need to re-install them with:

sudo apt install apt-clone cifs-utils dmeventd dpkg-repack gparted grub-efi-amd64 kpartx lvm2 python-crypto python-ldb python-samba python-tdb qt5-gtk-platformtheme qttranslations5-l10n samba-common samba-common-bin

I also need to remove any packages added by 'ubiquity' so I compare the output of running a 'dpkg-query' with the previous 'source_locally_installed_packages.18.04' output and see that I need to:

sudo apt purge grub-pc-bin

As a check I can then compare the 'localised_18.04.iso' with newly locally installed packages using:

isocomparepkgs.sh localised_18.04.iso

which confirms that I have successfully replicated the environment:



Now I can perform the upgrade with

(Alt+F2) update-manager -c -d



As I perform the upgrade I am given the opportunity to monitor what will happen:



and make important decisions:



Once complete I can then mimic the resultant environment to a standard Ubuntu 20.04 ISO with:

isomimicpkgs.sh ubuntu-20.04-desktop-amd64.iso

creating a final 'localised_20.04.iso'.

I can then compare this ISO with the ones created earlier (i.e. 'localised_pseudo_20.04.iso' and 'localised_20.04_from_pseudo_20.04.iso') and see more implications and effects of upgrading for use in my final planning of which approach to use and what information I need to successfully upgrade my testing PC from Ubuntu 18.04 to 20.04.

Hopefully this worked example show the usefulness of my 'ISO' tools and how they can be applied to everyday problems rather than just being used to boot Ubuntu on a 32-bit device.

Please donate if you find the scripts useful using the following link http://goo.gl/nXWSGf as everything helps with development costs.