[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: NT OS Loader + Linux = how?

lawson_whitney juno com wrote:
> That doesn't look right.  The phys= _is_ a cylinder mapping for a 255
> head mapping (which is stupid: why use 255 out of 256 possible heads
> when all but 2 of them are imaginary anyway?)  I have never seen a drive
> bigger than 200mb that had less than 63 sectors, so that should be looks
> wrong to me.

Ok. But, should I consider that things are completelly ok now? Remember
that this error msg I got after I tried to add an 'nt' entry to a newly
installed Caldera 1.2. Now I also have again the 'nt' entry within LILO
which is located in the MBR. May I expect some problems one day? Btw, my
NT's NTFS partition hasn't been changed since then (I shrinked it to a
smaller volume *before* I tried to install Caldera 1.2 and Caldera's
LILO reported this error msg. After I managed to boot newly installed RH
6.1 with LILO, I add the 'nt' entry and now I can also boot NT from
within LILO without problems. May I expect my disks' geometry to be
intact - i.e. proper?)

> Maybe Caldera 1.2 is just too old for your hardware?

Well, it might be... who knows? I only can say it looked ok during the
installation and later, but before the first re-boot (both text and GUI

> > Interesting: it reported that /root=/dev/sda6 (why 6 ?)
> > and there were two choices: linux and linux-up (what is the purpose of
> > 'up' version?)
> 'cuz /dev/sda2 is the extended partition?  Is /dev/sda5 maybe / for
> linux-up?
> I am guessing here.  I tend to make a little partition with the
> installer that can be booted from the HD, that I can use as a rescue
> system, or to install a new version of glibc.  Maybe the -up means
> update and gives you the installer.

Well, it works but it looks a bit strange to me: I know I did not wanted
or asked the setup to make any extended partition. You see, I actually
removed /dev/sda2 partition (carrying Caldera 1.2) in order to boot NT
again. It means that instead of /dev/sda2 I got free space. *Then* I
started RH 6.1 setup as the Gnome Workstation and it only said that it
would remove any linux partition it found. It did not ask me what disk
or partition I wanted to have new RH to be on, so after all was
finished, I discovered that it made 3 partitions from the free space at
the beginning of the 1st disk. I don't know why the setup should even
think of any extended partition during the installation process, because
there I only have one NT's partition which fdisk saw as /dev/sda1.
Beside that, after the installation was finished, during the booting
process of Linux I think I saw that it initialises both /dev/sda6 and
after that, /dev/sda5 (in that order). Until now, I haven't checked
carefully this option of 'linux-up' to learn more about it (at my other
linux custom-installed box, LILO doesn't offer 'linux-up' option). I'll
check it more next days.

> If you will _ever_ want more than 4 partitions, one of the 4 primary
> partitions must describe the extended partition.  You can have as many
> logical drives as you can fit in the extended partition; since there are
> 4 primary partitions, they are numbered starting with 5.

Ok. I've read that you have to make an extended partition in case you
want to have *MORE* than 4 primary partitions, but what in case you have
just 4 or less than 4 primaries? You see, the setup has made one 20 MB
(/boot?), one 1.3 GB (/root?) and one 70 MB (swapp?) and NTFS one
remained intact (I hope). Btw, on my other (IDE) Linux box, I have two
large NTFS partitions, and then one native (/dev/hda3) and one swap
(/dev/hda4) for Linux (in sum there are 4 and I don't know if there was
also needed to have some xtended partitions too?)

> Red Hat likes extended partitions.  Maybe, now that the smoke has
> cleared, you can get a better idea of what is where with fdisk.

I don't mind it, but anyway I'd rather have less number of partitions
and to have them all primary (regarding it is the 1st disk with system
files). I suppose that my other scsi disks might be prepared this or
that way, because they are about to carry applications and data). Any

> Linux is so flexible as to be almost amorphous.  You can add any options
> you like to any system.  (they may depend on other options you might
> need to add first, if you like to let rpm have its way).

How to add all other installation modes, except this one I used? Is it
reasonable to re-install the whole package (including Gnome, KDE, Server
etc) but to tell the setup to use the existing locations for boot, root,
swapp...? It seems to me that it didn't install GUI part completelly.

> If you don't have X configured at all, I like the xf86config
> program.  It runs in text mode itself, and is somewhat laborious, but it
> will - if you are able to answer its questions honestly - make an
> XF86Config file that will be usable first time.  Even if you do have X
> configured, but it doesn't work very well, try xf86config.  Once you
> have X configured, startx should work.  or xinit.  I would want to see
> startx or xinit work before I would mess with GUI runlevel, which I
> don't think you would want on a server anyway.

Well, I started xf86config program (it only asked me for vga server to
choose and for chipset, not tried to make video probe) and it made an
XF86Config file. But, when I tried startx or xinit I got an error msg.
Will check it again and let you know details.

> That sounds reasonable to me.  Linux won't molest an NT partition unless
> you tell it to.  If you, as root, say
>  cp /dev/zero /dev/<ntpartitionname>
> it is gone, but if you don't mention it in /etc/fstab, and don't give
> wrong permissions to the /dev files, it is not going to get damaged by
> accident.  If you like, you can delete the /dev files that describe NTFS
> partitions, to make doubly sure.

Well, until now, I only discovered that NT's Disk Administrator "see'
those 3 unknown partitions at the beginning of the 1st disk and, of
course, its own NTFS partitions. As long as somebody doesn't try to
delete those 3 unknown partitions from within NT, I'm happy :-)

I just wondered if any of both Linux and NT won't cause any problem to
the other one OS.

The next problem to solve: under NT I have a shared network printer that
is connected to NT server. Well, I want to have this printer also under
RH (print server?) that can be accessed by Win95/98 client station in
the network. How to make it?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]