Partitioning for XP & Linux, How Much for What?

Matt wrote:

chrisv wrote:

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
all bootable on the same machine.

Here's another link:

http://lwn.net/Articles/86835/

and another

http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/0...booting91.html

chrisv wrote:

FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
problem.

I mis-spoke there. As I recall, Grub gave the option, but Windows
would not boot.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
"Dave C." wrote:

After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Huh? I have been using stock 2.6.x up to 2.6.9-rc2 without any
problem like this. Care to give a reference? Or is this just
a problem of Fedora?

All 2.6 kernels have the issue, is my understanding.

I am completely unaware of this and since I have
used a dual-boot machine since 1994, I should have noticed
something, should I not? And if there is an issue I would
like to know exactly what it is...

Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
previously-installed Linux partition.

Not if you create the installation partition with Linux. At least
I have done this successfully several times.

What do mean, exactly? Windows will replace the boot-loader every
time, and not give an option to boot Linux, from what I've seen.

Oh, that is what you mean. But that is not real damage, just a small
issue to be corrected with a Linux recovery CD/floppy or a grub
boot-floppy. Takes two minutes and is routine for me. Note that
this does nothing to the Linux partition. It is purely an MBR
issue.

So, basically, you're screwed
for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
regard as kludges).

"Huh?" again: Lilo and Grub do the job without problem. And they
are not "third-party".

"Lilo and Grub" are NOT what I consider "kludgy third party
boot-loaders". In theory, the preferred way to get the dual-boot
going is to install Windows first, then Linux, using Grub or Lilo to
allow dual-booting.

Or use the other way round and the Grub-floppy/Grub-CD/Knoppix CD to
make Linux bootable again. Quite simple. Of course you have to
understand some bootloader basics for this.

FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
problem.

I still don't see any kernel issue here at all. 2.6 will not touch
a partition unless told to. It may be that the FC2 installer is bad.
I have observed no effects on Windows partitions with the Debian
installer. And that Grub in FC2 has no option to boot Windows
surely is FC2's fault and not that of Grub. You can still go to
the Grub shell and boot Windows manually and as long as you can
boot a linux from somewhere you can reinstall/maintain LILO.

I don't quite see your problem. Of course if you do not have
any possibility ti boot besides the HDD, you may be screwed.
But then how did you perform the installation in the first
place?

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:

FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
problem.

I mis-spoke there. As I recall, Grub gave the option, but Windows
would not boot.

O.K., then this was likely because the preconfigured Windows
boot optins were wrong. Solution:

- boot into grub bit not farther
- Go to grub shell.
- Tell it which partition is Windows:
root (hd0,1)
if on hda1, adjust if somewere else.
- Make the partition active (for some reason Windows still needs this):
makeactive
- Tell Grub to use the chainloader:
chainloader +1
- Boot:
boot

This should bring Windows up o.k.. Also works with a Grub
boot-floppy. You can add the correct settings from Linux in the
/boot/grub/menu.lst file once you have figured them out.

An other possibility is that FC2 did damage in the partitioning
process. Still not a Linux or Kernel issue, but a problem of
FC2. That Linux is a great OS does not mean there are no broken
distros or installers.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
Matt wrote:

chrisv wrote:
"Dave C." wrote:


After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)


You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
all bootable on the same machine.

It doesn't happen every time, but it's a fact it happens, when you
first install Windows and then install Linux. It happened to me.

From
http://www.hut.fi/~tkarvine/linux-wi...zing-ntfs.html
[...]
O.K., from a document referenced the

Primer:
There is a bug in Fedora Core 2 that causes the hard disk
geometry as reported in the partition table to be altered during
installation. This change may cause Windows boot failure. Although
this bug is severe, it is recoverable and no data should be lost. It
is important not to panic if and when this happens so you do not cause
further problems or cause actual loss of data in the process of
recovering from the error.

This is not a Linux or Kernel issue. This is a broken installer that
does the partitioning wrong. I never experienced this problem. I now
have a 2.6 kernel on all my systems. However I do all my partitioning
manually with Linux fdisk. I have heard that some of the fdisk
alternatives can cause this problem but was not interested enough to
investigate, since fdisk works well.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
Matt wrote:

chrisv wrote:

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
all bootable on the same machine.

Here's another link:

http://lwn.net/Articles/86835/

This is the FC2 problem.

and another

http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/0...booting91.html
From this: " ... The partitioning tool parted, which YaST uses during
the installation, may write an incorrect partition table...."

Yes, parted has problems with a 2.6 kernel and windows partitions.
But they are parted's problems, not kernel problems. I also find
parted a quite scary tool, since you do not get verification
questions on dangerous operations.

As I said, these are bad installers using partitioning tools that have
issues with 2.6. I have had no problems at all partitioning for
Windows with Linux fdisk. And fdisk does not do any changes to disk
until you quit it, a feature I like very much. Of course fdisk is
quite old and has some issues. For example it still sticks to the
notion of cylinders. parted does away with them and just uses size.

Maybe one additional comment for SuSE: I used SuSE until lasst year,
when I finally got fed-up with their unability to perfrom reliable
updates between different versions. I am now running Debian without
these problems.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

J. Clarke wrote:
Matt wrote:

I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.


I don't find it an "odd approach" at all. If you come from the mainframe
world the use of virtual machines is SOP--it's very, very old technology,
commercially available since the late '60s or early '70s. If you've never
used one you might want to try it. Personally I find the notion that you
must reboot to run a different OS on a machine that was designed to support
virtual operation is the "odd approach". The use of a virtual machine is
_much_ more convenient that repeated rebooting. Yes, there's a performance
penalty, but if you're doing something that critical it should have a
dedicated machine anyway.

Okay, so you are saying that XP runs a process that emulates an i386
processor and the other PC hardware? Then you just run the binaries
from an ordinary *nix distro? Or do you run a distro made especially
for the virtual machine? If it is an ordinary distro, I don't know how
you would install the system.

Matt wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Matt wrote:

I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.


I don't find it an "odd approach" at all. If you come from the mainframe
world the use of virtual machines is SOP--it's very, very old technology,
commercially available since the late '60s or early '70s. If you've
never
used one you might want to try it. Personally I find the notion that you
must reboot to run a different OS on a machine that was designed to
support
virtual operation is the "odd approach". The use of a virtual machine is
_much_ more convenient that repeated rebooting. Yes, there's a
performance penalty, but if you're doing something that critical it
should have a dedicated machine anyway.

Okay, so you are saying that XP runs a process that emulates an i386
processor and the other PC hardware?

It doesn't emulate the processor--it doesn't need to--virtual operation has
been designed into every Intel or Intel-compatible processor from the 80386
on. It does emulate some of the peripherals, notably the video, the
network card, and the sound board--in each case a commonplace and widely
supported chip is emulated.

And this is not specific to XP.

Microsoft Virtual PC runs on Windows 2000 or XP--the last version that
Connectix produced before Microsoft bought them out also ran on Windows 98
and NT. There's also a Mac version that runs a full software emulation of
the x86. There was an OS/2 version that had just shipped when Microsoft
bought out Connectix, but Microsoft seems to have killed it.

The competing product, vmware, runs on Windows NT, 2K, and XP, and on Linux.
It's for the most part a better product, however it costs twice as much.

Both Microsoft and vmware have free demo versions available, but for Windows
only.

Both also have server versions of their products which I haven't played
with.

There was an attempt at GPL equivalent, plex86, but it was much more
limited--it wouldn't run any guest OS but Linux, and the last activity on
it seems to have been over a year ago.

Then you just run the binaries
from an ordinary *nix distro?

Yes. Or BSD or Novell or Windows or Plan 9 or BeOS or whatever.

Or do you run a distro made especially
for the virtual machine?

Nope. Except to the extent that if the default kernel doesn't have support
for the particular peripheral chips being emulated compiled in you'd want
to recompile with those drivers, same as you would for any machine.

If it is an ordinary distro, I don't know how
you would install the system.

Same way you'd install it on any machine. Insert the CD and boot up
(assuming the distribution CD is bootable of course). But what you're
booting is the virtual machine, whose display appears in a window on your
Windows or Linux desktop.



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...

I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to
have an
80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP
Home
as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.

So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
partitions:
one for the XP OS,
one for Linux, and
one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
partitions?

How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
arrangement make sense?

My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as
a
regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've
been
told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then
a
reinstall is easier.

And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .

And one more question. When I install a program on the
document-program
partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition
too?
Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
Files\Common Files , the usual default place?


My best advice for this is No Partitions. Use mobile racks with
separate
drives. One has to reboot to change from one OS to another anyway.
This promotes less foul-ups with partitioning, boot loaders etc etc.

"Frank" wrote:
My best advice for this is No Partitions. Use mobile racks with
separate drives. One has to reboot to change from one OS
to another anyway. This promotes less foul-ups with partitioning,
boot loaders etc etc.


Mobile racks (a.k.a. "caddies" and "removable trays") are
indeed very convenient. I installed a Kingwin unit of the type
with the cooling fan built into the bottom of the removable tray
(http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_detail.a...teID=25&ID=136),
and it works beautifully, keeping the hard drive (a Maxtor
DiamondMax Plus 9) quite cool. I use it for backing up the
entire contents of each of my two internal hard drives. The only
tradeoff is a slight whooshing noise from the air rushing into the
front of the removable tray. With 3 hard drives and a few ATAPI
devices, round cables are necessary to make everything fit, so I
use the ones with the aluminum braid shielding. So far,
no problems.

*TimDaniels*