This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
((Hm... may have scrambled the attributions on some of these messages... -- Joe B.)) From: 0894300856-0001@t-online.de (Harald Brennich) Date: 4 Jan 1998 16:43:18 GMT Subject: Re: Cylinder > 1024 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Stefan Schubert wrote: > > Hi, > > for my unfortune I setup my system in that way that I only have a free > partition on a cylinder number >1024. > > Using RedHat4.0 I have no chance to boot this partition. > > 1) Is there a solution for my problem (except repartioning)? > > 2) Why the hell (sorry) is there this 1024cylinder boundary. > Especially when using the boot disk for installation Linux is able > to boot and to mount /dev/hdb2 from a cylinder>1024. > From that point of view I see no reason why it shouldn't > be possible to create a boot disk which does the same? > > I appreciate any help... > > Stefan > > In addition to Kurt Wells comment: 1. Using loadlin there is no 1024 cylinder boundary. loadlin can be run under DOS - also in the DOS configuration menu. 2. When repartitioning your hard disk, it is sufficient to make small partition for lilo containing /boot. All other directories can be mounted on logical disk drives in the extended partition. MfG Harald Brennich 2. === From: "Jonathan Haase" <jhaase@`nospam`tacnet.missouri.org> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:23:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Cylinder > 1024 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Roy Stogner wrote in message ... <snip> </snip> >If LILO doesn't work on your hard drive, try typing "linux root=/dev/hdb2" >at the LILO prompt on the floppy. It might be a usable workaround, >although it would make updating your kernel (and booting in general) a >pain. >--- >Roy Stogner The other option that has worked for me is using loadlin it works and doesn't cause much of any problem updating the kernel or booting. I just boot into DOS and issue the command loadlin vmlinuz root=/dev/hdb2 All that is required to update your kernel is to copy the compressed kernel file out to the DOS drive into the loadlin directory. If you are attached to using a boot floppy the same thing could be accomplished by making a dos boot floppy on which the only thing in the autoexec.bat would be a command similar to the following. c: cd loadlin c:\loadlin\loadlin vmlinuz root=/dev/hdb2 Or something like that anyway. === From: s0800746@smail.rrz.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Schubert) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:15:52 GMT Subject: Re: Cylinder > 1024 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup "Jonathan Haase" <jhaase@`nospam`tacnet.missouri.org> wrote: >The other option that has worked for me is using loadlin it works and >doesn't cause much of any problem updating the kernel or booting. I just >boot into DOS and issue the command >loadlin vmlinuz root=/dev/hdb2 Thanks a lot to all who answered. It helped. I manage to create a boot disk and using loadlin from dos as well. LILO boot: linux root=/dev/hdb2 worked with the install disk :-) Encouraged I tried to create a boot disk with: cp vmlinuz /dev/fd0 rdev /dev/fd0 /dev/hda2 which worked too! (Also using loadlin from DOS) === From: mibu@scrum.muc.de (M. Buchenrieder) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:21:58 GMT Subject: Re: Cylinder > 1024 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup s0800746@smail.rrz.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Schubert) writes: >Hi, >for my unfortune I setup my system in that way that I only have a free >partition on a cylinder number >1024. Sad, but not desperate. >Using RedHat4.0 I have no chance to boot this partition. >1) Is there a solution for my problem (except repartioning)? Yes. Don't use LILO. >2) Why the hell (sorry) is there this 1024cylinder boundary. Because the BIOS has a limit in the way the loader program gets called - the field for the cyl. # doesn't allow any value above 1023. Note: If your system supports LBA, there's no limit of this sort, but be aware that changing the addressing scheme on a disk with formatted partitions will result in severe data loss. > Especially when using the boot disk for installation Linux is able > to boot and to mount /dev/hdb2 from a cylinder>1024. It is booting from the floppy, not from the HD. You can easily do this with a new kernel as well, but then you'll have to boot into Linux using a floppy disk. > From that point of view I see no reason why it shouldn't > be possible to create a boot disk which does the same? There is none. It is , however, not possible to boot from a HD partition that starts above # 1023 (to be precise, the kernel must reside entirely within the first 1024 cylinders) . Use LOADLIN.EXE to boot Linux from out of DOS, or change the addressing scheme to LBA (caveats see above ! - backup everything) , or install a boot loader like SystemCommander . === From: Neil Zanella <nzanella@cs.mun.ca> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 19:51:44 -0330 Subject: infamous 1023 cylinder problem: partitioning IDE hard drive for LILO Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup A while ago I have attempted to install Debian Linux. I have a 1.6Gb IDE hard drive. I decided to have a 500Mb partition for Windows 95 followed by a 64Mb swap partition and the rest of the hard drive put apart for a Linux native partition. I then installed the Master Boot Loader (LILO) on the Linux native partition, and upon reboot I got a bare LI. Of course that had to do with the infamous 1023 cylinder problem. As my hard drive is IDE I cannot install the Linux boot loader after 512Mb. Then I installed Red Hat Linux 4.2 with the exact same scheme and everything went fine; isn't that odd. I am now just about to install Red Hat Linux 5.0 on top of 4.2 and am wondering what partitioning scheme I should use. I am afraid that if I use the same partitions one day LILO might fail, once I get enough software installed, etc... I am a bit uncomfortable with allocating less than 500Mb for windows; that space is almost all filled up. I am wondering whether Linux will allow me to create a root partition before MS-Windows, and still leave all the other Linux files beyond MS-Windows. ??????? Even better, can I install Linux on the first half of my hard drive and Windows on the second half? === From: spatula@netcom.com (Pick) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:19:08 GMT Subject: Re: infamous 1023 cylinder problem: partitioning IDE hard drive for LILO Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Neil Zanella wrote: > A while ago I have attempted to install Debian Linux. > I have a 1.6Gb IDE hard drive. I decided to have a 500Mb partition for > Windows 95 followed by a 64Mb swap partition and the rest of the hard > drive put apart for a Linux native partition. I then installed the Master > Boot Loader (LILO) on the Linux native partition, and upon reboot I got a > bare LI. Of course that had to do with the infamous 1023 cylinder problem. > As my hard drive is IDE I cannot install the Linux boot loader after > 512Mb. Not necessarily... You don't say anything about your motherboard and BIOS, so this may not apply, but you might be able to get around this problem. The key thing is that it's only the number of cylinders that matters here. If you're using your drives in "Normal" mode (that is, max 16 heads, etc.) then a partition ending before 1023 cylinders is indeed limited to 512 Mb. However, if you can set your drive type to "LBA" in your BIOS, then the number of heads of the drive can be set to something much higher and the entire 1.6Gb may well be accessible below 1023 cylinders. Check your BIOS for this. > Then I installed Red Hat Linux 4.2 with the exact same scheme and > everything went fine; isn't that odd. I am now just about to install > Red Hat Linux 5.0 on top of 4.2 and am wondering what partitioning scheme > I should use. I am afraid that if I use the same partitions one day LILO > might fail, once I get enough software installed, etc... > > I am a bit uncomfortable with allocating less than 500Mb for windows; > that space is almost all filled up. > > I am wondering whether Linux will allow me to create a root partition > before MS-Windows, and still leave all the other Linux files beyond > MS-Windows. ??????? > > Even better, can I install Linux on the first half of my hard drive and > Windows on the second half? > No. AFAIK, DOS and Windows can only "see" FAT/VFAT partitions that occur before any other partition type on a physical disk. So, you could have 2 drives, each with 1 Windows partition first and then any number of Linux partitions, and Windows would see the Windows partitions as drives C: and D:. But it can't see Windows partitions that are "behind" linux (or any other FS type) partitions on a drive. === From: spatula@netcom.com (Pick) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:19:08 GMT Subject: Re: infamous 1023 cylinder problem: partitioning IDE hard drive for LILO Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Neil Zanella (nzanella@cs.mun.ca) wrote: > Hi. > A while ago I have attempted to install Debian Linux. > I have a 1.6Gb IDE hard drive. I decided to have a 500Mb partition for > Windows 95 followed by a 64Mb swap partition and the rest of the hard > drive put apart for a Linux native partition. I then installed the Master > Boot Loader (LILO) on the Linux native partition, and upon reboot I got a > bare LI. Of course that had to do with the infamous 1023 cylinder problem. > As my hard drive is IDE I cannot install the Linux boot loader after > 512Mb. > Then I installed Red Hat Linux 4.2 with the exact same scheme and > everything went fine; isn't that odd. I am now just about to install > Red Hat Linux 5.0 on top of 4.2 and am wondering what partitioning scheme > I should use. I am afraid that if I use the same partitions one day LILO > might fail, once I get enough software installed, etc... > I am a bit uncomfortable with allocating less than 500Mb for windows; > that space is almost all filled up. > I am wondering whether Linux will allow me to create a root partition > before MS-Windows, and still leave all the other Linux files beyond > MS-Windows. ??????? > Even better, can I install Linux on the first half of my hard drive and > Windows on the second half? > Thanks. I had the same experience when I installed Linux (red hat too) before. but when I tried to re-lilo with a new kernel, it didn't work. What happened was the kernel was originally installed in within the first 512 MB (I had more leeway, I only used 250Mb for Windows), and the new kernel ended up too far into the disk... What I used on reinstall (and suggest in your case): Partition 1 - Windows. Partition 2 - A small partition, mounted on /boot Partition 3 - swap Partition 4 - the rest, mounted on / of course. You could fit 5 or 6 kernels in a 3 meg /boot partition (where Red Hat puts the kernels). Since this partition, and therefore the kernels, would be in the first 512M of your disk (assuming you keep the 500M windows partition), lilo could boot them. The swap and / partitions could be in either order, but most disks are "zoned" so that they are faster nearer the start of the disk, so I put swap first. With as little as 1 gig of storage, I might want just one main partition, other than /boot. However, I find it valuable to have more partitions. You can do such things as mount the /usr partition read-only (security), unmount partitions to defragment them, and with redhat, install a new version and keep the same /home partition. That last is a real time and labour saver. My current setup (bigger disk drive, again faster at the lower cylinders): Filesystem Mounted on /dev/hda1 /tmp - where workfiles are used. I'm using up to 8M of 40M i have allocated here. You might want to just leave it in "/" and put a bigger / here. /dev/hda2 (Swap area) Fast, not used as often as /tmp, size to RAM*2. Doesn't usually use much anyway. /dev/hda3 / - containing /bin, /etc, /bin, /sbin, and the rest. Including /boot of course, so this partition must be in the first 512M of the disk! I'm using 32M out of the 72 I allocated to this partition. /dev/hda4 (Extended partition sized to the rest of the disk, it contains the rest of the partitions) /dev/hda5 /var - currently using 13M out of 105M allocated. /dev/hda6 /home - this gets the remaining area after the other partitions. /dev/hda7 /usr - I have almost a full install, so I am using 450M out of the 600M I made this partition. The disk starts getting quite slower here, but most IO is to /tmp, /var, /etc, and /home. /dev/hda8 /root - to operate out of with /home dismounted. no real need to move it from "/", I'm using only 5 Meg for it, 15 allocated. Slowest part of the disk, seldom used, though. I left a lot more slack room than I needed and will use less next time. Unless you get a bigger disk or a second disk, you should probably stick to the 4-partition layout I first mentioned, so all the disk can be used. === From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery@nospam.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:41:18 +0000 Subject: Re: infamous 1023 cylinder problem: partitioning IDE hard drive for LILO Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup In article <34B14CBD.4969@NO.ix.SPAM.netcom.com>, Phil DeBecker <debecker@NO.ix.SPAM.netcom.com> writes >Neil Zanella wrote: >> >> >> Even better, can I install Linux on the first half of my hard drive and >> Windows on the second half? >> > >No. AFAIK, DOS and Windows can only "see" FAT/VFAT partitions that >occur before any other partition type on a physical disk. So, you could >have 2 drives, each with 1 Windows partition first and then any number >of Linux partitions, and Windows would see the Windows partitions as >drives C: and D:. But it can't see Windows partitions that are "behind" >linux (or any other FS type) partitions on a drive. > Sorry - you can. I have W95 on hda1, Linux root on hda2, W95 drive D on hda5, E on hda6, F on hda7 and Linux /u on hda8. (Or does the fact that my extra drives are an extended partition make any difference?) The other trick is just to create a tiny boot partition, to contain just the kernel(s). Create a 1 or 2 Mb partition round about cylinder 1000, mount it on your /boot directory, and tell LILO to boot from it. So lilo.conf would have something like root = /dev/hda3 boot = /dev/hda2 and windows is on hda1. === From: "Bayard R. Coolidge" <iget@enuf.spam.asitis> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:52:42 -0500 Subject: Re: infamous 1023 cylinder problem: partitioning IDE hard drive for LILO Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk wrote: >>> Create a 1 or 2 Mb partition round about cylinder 1000, Arrgghhh!! The problem is not with _cylinder_ 1000, but with anything over 540MB or so on IDE and 1024MB on SCSI. This is not a difference in just semantics - I got burned doing a Red Hat 5.0 installation on my brand-new Seagate Barracuda drive. It's 4.0 GB, but only has 522 cylinders (at 8+ MB apiece !!). I had to re-partition to set up the Linux partition to start at around 1020MB. (I created 4 primary partitions under RH 5.0's fpart program, 1020 MB MSDOS, 1.9GB Linux system, 125MB Linux swap [biggest I could get with 8+MB cylinder granularity, BTW], and then an 1067MB MSDOS partition at the "top" of the drive that was later converted to NTFS when I installed NT4.0). I'd never worked with LILO before doing this installation, having used a floppy created by 'make [b]zdisk' when using my old 486 system. Once I got through this mis-statement in the manual, it was relatively trivial to set up multibooting. See http://www.windows-nt.com/multiboot/directboot.html for a really nice recipe. === From: rsteiner@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) Date: 11 Jan 1998 07:59:06 GMT Subject: Re: slackware or redhat? I know, it's been asked a billion times. Sorry Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Here in comp.os.linux.setup, Jesse Weigert <jweigert@usa.net> spake unto us, saying: >RedHat attempts to spoon feed you, but it doesn't work. It has tons of >GUI interfaces for setting everything up, but nothing really works well >for what anybody would want. Not sure I understand this comment at all. I use both Slackware 3.2 and Red Hat 4.2 here, and Red Hat's RPM and PPP configuration are both very useful. RPM doesn't need a GUI interface, BTW, and I much prefer to use the command-line version of RPM to that Glint thing. Or xrpm. === From: Ramesh Vellanki <Ramesh.Vellanki@mci.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 16:39:15 GMT Subject: NT+Linux+95 on two disks of the same pC Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup I could install RedHat 5.0 all by itself on my computer and it runs fine. But when I try to install Win95+NT4.0+Redhat5.0 I cannot install LILO to the MBR. Here are the details: I have 2 hard drives. The first one is a 5.1 GB IDE Western Digital with 1024 cylinders. I used the dos fdisk to create a primary dos partition on 2 GB and installed Windows 95 on it. This version of Windows 95 uses FAT16. I then installed NT 4.0 on the second drive secondary master) which is a quantum IDE with 4.3 GB space. I used the NT's install program to create this partition.Even this disk had 1024 cylinders. I could then dual boot between 95 and NT. I then started installing RedHat 5.0 on the remaining 3.1 GB on the first drive. Disk druid identified the existing partitions as /dev/hda1( Windows 95) and /dev/hdc (NT is identified as OS2 HPFS). My CD rom was Primary slave so I guess that was /dev/hdb. I created 96 MB swap partition, a 120 MB / partition(Which became /dev/hda5 for some reason). I created all other required partitions like /usr, /home /tmp etc and left about 20 MB free on disk 1). I installed everything fine. Finally the LILO part: I asked the boot record to be written in the MBR. Lilo asked me if I wanted to boot dos and linux as well but not NT. But it showed me the OS2 HPFS partition and blank string. I entered a string "Windows NT 4.0" and said OK. I then got a error message saying that it could not complete this part of setup or something like that. When I rebooted the machine, I could not see LILO start. Only NT loader started. I would appreciate it very much if someone could help me. Please!! === From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) Date: 5 Jan 1998 17:38:56 -0600 Subject: Re: NT+Linux+95 on two disks of the same pC Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 16:39:15 GMT, Ramesh Vellanki <Ramesh.Vellanki@mci.com> enlightened us with: <lots & lots of snippage> Ramesh, It looks like you tried to install lilo into the swap partition. run the setup again creating your /usr /home partitions first, leaving enough space at the end of your drive for swap. lilo 'might' work booting NT on your system, but you I would recommend installing lilo on you first linux partition (/dev/hda3 ?), then installing bootpart, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gvollant/bootpart.htm or os-bs ftp.cdrom.com (?) I have os-bs & it is fine. As with any O/S keep your 2 setup floppies safe, & make sure you know how to use them. why do I know all this stuff? maybe I've made all the same mistakes? === From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) Date: 5 Jan 1998 17:38:56 -0600 Subject: Re: NT+Linux+95 on two disks of the same pC Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup In <34B10BB3.7B01@mci.com> Ramesh Vellanki <Ramesh.Vellanki@mci.com> writes: >I could install RedHat 5.0 all by itself on my computer and it runs >fine. But when I try to install WIn95+NT4.0+Redhat5.0 I cannot install >LILO to the MBR. Here are the details: >I have 2 hard drives. The first one is a 5.1 GB IDE Western Digital >with 1024 cylinders. I used the dos fdisk to create a primary >dos partition on 2 GB and installed Windows 95 on it. This version >of Windows 95 uses FAT16. I then installed NT 4.0 on the second drive >secondary master) which is a quantum IDE with 4.3 GB space. I used the >NT's install program to create this partition.Even this disk >had 1024 cylinders. > I could then dual boot between 95 and NT. > I then started installing RedHat 5.0 on the remaining 3.1 GB >on the first drive. Disk druid identified the existing >partitions as /dev/hda1( Windows 95) and /dev/hdc (NT is >identified as OS2 HPFS). My CD rom was Primary slave so I >guess that was /dev/hdb. > I created 96 MB swap partition, a 120 MB / partition(Which became >/dev/hda5 for some reason). >I created all other required partitions like /usr, /home /tmp etc and >left about >20 MB free on disk 1). >I installed everything fine. Finally the LILO part: I asked >the boot record to be written in the MBR. Lilo asked me if >I wanted to boot dos and linux as well but not NT. But it >showed me the OS2 HPFS partition and blank string. I entered a string >"Windows >NT 4.0" and said OK. I then got a error message saying that >it could not complete this part of setup or something like that. > When I rebooted the machine, I could not see LILO start. Only NT loader >started. Right. The installation of lilo failed, so it did not change anything. You need to only boot DOS and linux. When you select DOS from the lilo prompt, you will then get the NT loader, and the choice between DOS and NT. Don't even try to boot NT directly, because NT cannot boot on the second disk -- it has to boot from the few NT files put on the DOS disk. It would actually be possible to boot DOS directly, bypassing the NT boot menu. But put that off until you have the basic stuff working. === From: Brian McCauley <B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk> Date: 05 Jan 1998 16:40:56 +0000 Subject: Re: Novice DOS integration Question Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup igraham@charm.net (Isaac Graham) writes: > Disk 1: IDE 500meg : > hda1 250meg allotted to Linux as / > hda2 250meg allotted to DOS as primary partition > > Disk 2: IDE 348meg: > hdb1 348meg: allotted to DOS as EXT DOS partition logical > drive D: > Disk 3: SCSI 810meg: > sda1 810meg allotted to Linux as /usr > > Disk 4: SCSI 420meg: > sdb1 64meg allotted as swap > sdb2 200meg allotted as /home > sdb3 120meg allotted as /var > > Based upon the above, a few questions: > 1. When I attempt to mount hda2 as "mount -t msdos /mnt" this works > okay. I then unmount it using "umount /mnt" and that works okay. > 2. When I attempt to mount hdb1 I receive an error basically saying > that I attempted to illegally tried to mount a ext DOS or logical > volume . What it is trying to say is that you are attempting to mount an EXT DOS partition (a container for logical drives) where you should be trying to mount one of the logical drives contained *within* the EXT DOS partition. In Linux nomenclature logical drives start at 5 so you probably should try hdb5. > How can I mount this volume to share with my Win95 clients? To share with Win95 clients use Samba. > 3. When I mount hdb1 I can only mount it using /mnt. Why can't I > create a new mount point like /dos_dsk1? I don't know, what happens when you try? === From: hmccurdy@ix.netcom.com (Hugh McCurdy) Date: 5 Jan 1998 19:22:48 GMT Subject: Re: FAT32 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup [Posted and mailed] In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.980104184350.15616A-100000@garfield.cs.mun.ca>, Neil Zanella <nzanella@cs.mun.ca> writes: > > Hi. > > I am running Windows 95 on a 32-bit Intel i586 machine. The system uses a > full 1.6Gb IDE hard drive. I am planning to install Red Hat Linux 5.0 on a > second portion of my hard drive (1.1Gb). I don't know whether my file > allocation table is FAT32? > If so that would mean that I cannot use fips to resize my hard drive, > so I will need to use fdisk destructively to repartition. > > How can I find out if my system is uses FAT32? > A couple of ways. In Win95, click on My Computer. Then right click on your C-Drive and select Properties. If it says FAT 32, then it is. Otherwise it probably is 16. Or from FDISK in Linux, check the tag for the partition. If the partition tag is 6, then it is almost certainly 16bit FAT. If it's something like B, C or E (?) then it's (probably) 32bit. I say probably since the tag information could be screwed up. Finally, from a DOS prompt in Win95, you can get the version #. I think I'm right about version # interpretation. If it ends in 0095, then you have the first version of Win95 and you can only have 16 bit FAT. If it ends in 1111, then you have OSR2 and could have a 32bit FAT. If it ends some other way, then I dunno, but I would guess you could have a 32bit FAT. (There is an OSR2.5 version and I don't know what VER reports for that version). And if you want to do more research, start with http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/chaffee/fat32.html === From: brasscannon@bigfoot.com (Kevin Martin) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 98 04:21:30 GMT Subject: Re: Boot concerns with 2 physical hard drives Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup In article <34b3484f.8101070@news.get2net.dk>, it says tom.christensen@get2net.dk wrote: ? Though if your hd is on the second ide channel, it is rarely possible ? to boot from this drive (BIOS limitation) <evil grin> My lilo stuff is set up in hdb2. But I cheat -- I 'dd' the boot sector over to hda1 and feed it to the NT boot manager. Works very nicely indeed, though I get a warning from lilo that "/dev/hdb2 is not on the first hard drive." The only catch is that I have to be *darn* sure to run that dd command after I run lilo, every time. === From: pinkas@fourfold.com Date: 06 Jan 1998 21:00:36 +0200 Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux njt@worlds-edge.u-net.com (N Turner) writes: > > Hello, > > I have been trying get Linux to boot from the NT4 boot manager. > > I have just re-installed Red Hat Linux 4.2 and arranged for the Linux > native partition to be made bootable, i.e install LILO there. The procedure was so simple that it took me almost 3 hours to get it right. Basically, you need to dump the boot block to a file and then arrange for the NT loader to use it. If you can boot Linux, use the following command: dd if=/dev/hdx of=/tmp/boot.lnx bs=512 count=1 Replace /dev/hdx with the correct device for your boot disk. If you cannot boot to Linux, restart the install process. At some point early on, you will be able to switch to a second virtual console with C+A+F2. (This occurs after the first few questions. Don't remember where.) When you get the shell prompt, mount /bin manually and then execute the above dd command. Now copy the file (boot.lnx) to the NT boot disk in some manner. (I used a DOS floppy for this.) Reboot the system to NT. Locate the file boot.ini on the NT boot drive. This is almost always C:. If you have a DOS/NT multiboot system, and put NT on D:, the file is still on C:. You will need to make boot.ini writable. Edit it and add the following line, after the multi() stuff. C:\boot.lnx="Linux" Now copy boot.lnx to C:\. Make boot.ini read-only again. Reboot. Make sure that the timeout= line is not set to 0, or you will not get the prompt for the alternate OS. The value is in seconds, and indicates how long NT will wait for keyboard input before booting the default OS. (You can use NT to change the order and set the default.) === From: corliss@odin.org (Arthur Corliss) Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Date: 7 Jan 98 04:20:29 GMT Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux In article <68tv02$5uf@news3.euro.net>, Steven Driesen wrote: >LILO is configured on /dev/hdb1 to directly boot the Linux. >What I do is strip the boot record from this disk using the command: > dd if=/dev/hdb1 of=/bootsect.lnx bs=512 count=1 >The copy the bootsect.lnx file to a partition that is know from the NT >bootmanager >(and from NT). Modify the NT bootloader ini file (boot.ini) and add an entry >to boot the >bootsect.lnx system (eg: C:\BOOTSECT.LNX="Linux...). > >Reboot and it should work... > >This is mentioned in one of the MINI-HOWTOS. > >Hope this helps, >Steven <G> That's the hard way. There's a freeware app out there called bootpart that will do the trick, with one step. --Arthur Corliss Corliss Consultancy Anchorage, Alaska === From: Andy Pearce <ajp@io.pwd.hp.com> Date: 12 Jan 1998 10:38:57 +0000 Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux corliss@odin.org (Arthur Corliss) writes: > <G> That's the hard way. There's a freeware app out there called bootpart > that will do the trick, with one step. At http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm there's a warning that you need to create a FAT16 partition as the first active partition on your drive. So, presumably for those of us who only have NTFS for NT, bootpart is not recommended? It looks a better solution except for that 1 problem. If you're configuring from scratch its maybe worth creating a small FAT16 partition just for that purpose? From: corliss@odin.org (Arthur Corliss) Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? References: <34b162d7.676112@news.u-net.com> <68tv02$5uf@news3.euro.net> <slrn6b60o6.10e.corliss@odin.org> <g8vhvq2czi.fsf@io.pwd.hp.com> Message-ID: <slrn6bm62m.3ot.corliss@odin.org> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) NNTP-Posting-Host: pool3-18.aonline.com Date: 13 Jan 98 07:29:20 GMT Lines: 22 === From: kuenz@lance.colostate.edu (Donald Charles Kuenz) Date: 14 Jan 1998 16:17:39 GMT Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux In article <g8vhvq2czi.fsf@io.pwd.hp.com>, Andy Pearce wrote: >corliss@odin.org (Arthur Corliss) writes: > >> <G> That's the hard way. There's a freeware app out there called bootpart >> that will do the trick, with one step. > >At http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm there's a warning that you need to >create a FAT16 partition as the first active partition on your drive. So, >presumably for those of us who only have NTFS for NT, bootpart is not >recommended? It looks a better solution except for that 1 problem. If >you're configuring from scratch its maybe worth creating a small FAT16 >partition just for that purpose? Nonsense. I've had only NTFS & ext2 on my system for quite some time. That bootloader can still read the bin file to boot Linux, even on NTFS. Try it, you'll see! :-) --Arthur Corliss Corliss Consultancy Anchorage, Alaska === From: kuenz@lance.colostate.edu (Donald Charles Kuenz) Date: 14 Jan 1998 16:17:39 GMT Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux I find it handy to create a FAT16 as the first partition, because Linux can write to a FAT16 partition. That way, when your re-compile your kernel, you can run lilo, and easily make the new boot sector available to the NT boot using a command similar to "dd if=/boot/vmlinuz of=/dos/bootsect.lnx bs=512 count=1". -Don Kuenz Arthur Corliss (corliss@odin.org) wrote: : In article <g8vhvq2czi.fsf@io.pwd.hp.com>, Andy Pearce wrote: : > : >At http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm there's a warning that you need to : >create a FAT16 partition as the first active partition on your drive. So, : >presumably for those of us who only have NTFS for NT, bootpart is not : >recommended? It looks a better solution except for that 1 problem. If : >you're configuring from scratch its maybe worth creating a small FAT16 : >partition just for that purpose? : Nonsense. I've had only NTFS & ext2 on my system for quite some time. That : bootloader can still read the bin file to boot Linux, even on NTFS. Try it, : you'll see! :-) : --Arthur Corliss : Corliss Consultancy : Anchorage, Alaska From: corliss@odin.org (Arthur Corliss) Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? References: <34b162d7.676112@news.u-net.com> <68tv02$5uf@news3.euro.net> <slrn6b60o6.10e.corliss@odin.org> <g8vhvq2czi.fsf@io.pwd.hp.com> <slrn6bm62m.3ot.corliss@odin.org> <69iof3$1ofk@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> Message-ID: <slrn6br16c.rl.corliss@odin.org> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) NNTP-Posting-Host: pool2-26.aonline.com Date: 15 Jan 98 03:36:35 GMT Lines: 22 === From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.nospamhere.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:04:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux In article <69iof3$1ofk@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, Donald Charles Kuenz wrote: >I find it handy to create a FAT16 as the first partition, because Linux can >write to a FAT16 partition. That way, when your re-compile your kernel, you >can run lilo, and easily make the new boot sector available to the NT boot >using a command similar to "dd if=/boot/vmlinuz of=/dos/bootsect.lnx bs=512 >count=1". > >-Don Kuenz > The only use I could see for a fat 16 is for transferring files between the OS'es. With that freeware bootpart available, it only takes one command line prog to configure the boot.ini, and create the bin file. Install the lilo in the superblock of the root partition, and you're in business. But, as with all things in Linux, there's more than one way to get it done, and we can choose. Cheers! --Arthur Corliss Corliss Consultancy Anchorage, Alaska === From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.nospamhere.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:04:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux Arthur Corliss wrote: > > In article <g8vhvq2czi.fsf@io.pwd.hp.com>, Andy Pearce wrote: > >corliss@odin.org (Arthur Corliss) writes: > > > >> <G> That's the hard way. There's a freeware app out there called bootpart > >> that will do the trick, with one step. > > > >At http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm there's a warning that you need to > >create a FAT16 partition as the first active partition on your drive. So, > >presumably for those of us who only have NTFS for NT, bootpart is not > >recommended? It looks a better solution except for that 1 problem. If > >you're configuring from scratch its maybe worth creating a small FAT16 > >partition just for that purpose? > > Nonsense. I've had only NTFS & ext2 on my system for quite some time. That > bootloader can still read the bin file to boot Linux, even on NTFS. Try it, > you'll see! :-) > > --Arthur Corliss > Corliss Consultancy > Anchorage, Alaska Yes, it can be done. After a year of NT Hell (hell is a four letter word, spelled "SP2"), I have three OSs in five installs on my system: 100 MB fat boot partition w/DOS 6.22. NT boot loader is here, from which I select alternative OSs. My bootsect.lnx will go here when I decide to get LILO to cooperate again, in the meantime I boot Linux via LOADLIN and a DOS boot prompt. Primary NT install. NTFS so my lady friend don't blow it away. Secondary NT install (recovery), FAT, so I can blow away the primary (and get support from my vendor, Gateway, who doesn't support NTFS under NT, go figure). Partition is hidden from lady friend (she can't hurt what she can't see). This lets me do things like modify/delete NT system files. Granted, for a full recovery, I'd probably have to restore this partition as well, but it's pretty vanilla, and shouldn't be too problematic. Primary Linux install. ext2fs Secondary (recovery) linux install is an image living in the boot partition, and is loaded via LOADLIN, also from the DOS boot menu. (1.9 MB, just too big for a floppy, I'll tune it later), which gives me a very workable Linux running fully in ram. Quick ;-) And I don't have to worry about messing anything up (it's the OS which never remembers...) I've run Linux from Jaz (formatted as multiple ext2 filesystems), booting from DOS via loadlin. Don't recommend it, as the disks seem to fail after a time, or possibly immediately, when writing at about 66% of the way through the damned thing. Very unhappy with Iomega. === From: raph@panache.demon.co.uk (Raphael Mankin) Date: 15 Jan 1998 10:28:20 -0000 Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NT4? Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux It does not matter what your first, active partition is, so long as all the boot related stuff lies in the first 1024 cylinders. All the first-level boot code uses the BIOS to access the disk and is therefore restricted 10 1024 cylinders. Once you get into the second-level boot there is no problem. === From: Neil Zanella <nzanella@cs.mun.ca> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 03:35:51 -0330 Subject: mounting filesystems ???? Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Hi. I am installing Red Hat Linux 5.0 right now. I have decided to use the classical fdisk program and here is how I decided to partition my 1.6 Gb hard drive: 500 Mb MSDOS/Win95 (/msdos) 64 Mb Linux swap primary 80 Mb Linux native (/) primary 400 Mb Linux native (/usr) logical 10 (/home) logical 450 Mb Linux native (/usr/local) logical all the rest Linux native logical Any comments on this scheme? Here is what I don't understand: how can I have partitions greater in size than the one where I mount root when the whole filesystem is located under root. Also, I left the last logical partition blank so that all other possible subdirectories can be mounted there. Is that the idea or am I totally puzzled up? === From: viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) Date: 6 Jan 1998 08:27:44 -0500 Subject: Re: mounting filesystems ???? Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Mount doesn't include filesystem into the parent one. It just notifies the kernel that all references to the given directory should be redirected to the root directory on given device. So, if I say "mount -t ext2 /dev/hda3 /usr/tmp" and then try to open /usr/tmp/foo/bar the kernel will do the following: take the root directory at the root fs (suppose hda2); look for the reference to usr there (in hda2 /) look for the reference to tmp there (in hda2 /usr) OOPS! Notice that hda3 was mounted here look for the reference to foo (in hda3 /) look for the reference to bar there (in hda3 /foo) and here we are. As the matter of fact directories are not containers - just the lists of references. So there are no problems with mounting huge filesystem onto the tiny one. Al === From: roystgnr@roystgnr.jones.rice.edu (Roy Stogner) Date: 7 Jan 1998 01:28:36 GMT Subject: Re: mounting filesystems ???? Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup On Tue, 6 Jan 1998 03:35:51 -0330, Neil Zanella <nzanella@cs.mun.ca> wrote: >Hi. >I am installing Red Hat Linux 5.0 right now. >I have decided to use the classical fdisk program and here is how I >decided to partition my 1.6 Gb hard drive: > >500 Mb MSDOS/Win95 (/msdos) >64 Mb Linux swap primary >80 Mb Linux native (/) primary >400 Mb Linux native (/usr) logical >10 (/home) logical >450 Mb Linux native (/usr/local) logical >all the rest Linux native logical > >Any comments on this scheme? One comment: don't. Unless you really know what you're doing, or have a specific need to do so, making so many filesystems will be more trouble than it's worth. Just do a 64 MB swap and a 1 GB root and make things simple for yourself. >Here is what I don't understand: how can I have partitions greater in >size than the one where I mount root when the whole filesystem is located >under root. The whole filesystem isn't physically located on the root partition, it is just located under the root partition... Everything in /usr/local would be on that partition, everything else on /usr would be on that one, and so on. >Also, I left the last logical partition blank so that all >other possible subdirectories can be mounted there. Is that the idea or >am I totally puzzled up? No, in the above scheme all other subdirectories would remain in the root partition. === Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:20:05 -0500 From: Dave Greene <dgreene@mediasoft.net> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux and FAT32 Warren Anderson wrote: > Don Milne wrote: > > > I have always managed with FIPS and LILO to solve my partition and > > dual boot needs > > Then presumably you have never had to non-destructively repartition a > disk with a FAT32 file system? > > Or is there some little known way do this with FIPS and LILO? I know it is a late post, but just say it. You can non-destructively repartition with FIPS and LILO, I've done it and it works just fine, works best if you defrag your system and don't leave anything at the end(like backups and such) you will lose those. Also it seems that FIPS won't allow to get a really large size partition created, which annoyed me in that a have a 6.4 gig HD that i wanted to split. Didn't know how to rewrite the code so I just reformatted and split it. But to answer, yes you can do a very good non-destructive repartition wit FIPS. === From: Adam Stouffer <tesla@sgi.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 03:44:34 GMT Subject: Re: Linux and FAT32 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux Why use FIPS? I downloaded partition magic and would recommend it over FIPS any day. When it comes time for the weekly reinstall of win95 and it disables my boot manager, I use partition magic to set it back. === From: dw@null.dk (Allan Joergensen) Date: 13 Jan 1998 12:16:02 GMT Subject: Re: Linux and FAT32 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux On 13 Jan 1998 10:19:18 GMT, Nicholas Buenk <Nickb@tig.com.au> wrote: >Does partition magic boot manager work with linux Yes. It is the same as IBM shipped with OS/2 === From: rodsmith@fast9.uceprotect.net (Rod Smith) Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:32:15 GMT Subject: Re: Linux and FAT32 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux [Posted and mailed] In article <34B44C8D.24D4@sgi.net>, Adam Stouffer <tesla@sgi.net> writes: > Why use FIPS? I downloaded partition magic and would recommend it over > FIPS any day. When it comes time for the weekly reinstall of win95 and > it disables my boot manager, I use partition magic to set it back. Why use FIPS? Because it's freeware. Partition Magic is not. Downloading Partition Magic without paying for it constitutes theft. === From: Ed Friese <edfriese@popmail1.vcd.hp.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:16:48 -0800 Subject: Linux at >1023rd cylinder Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup I have a new system (or will when I get home tonight) with a single 6.4 gig hard drive. I would like to put Linux on it, but also (since most game companies do not make linux versions) windows '95. Before I dive in and install linux, I have a few questions: 1) If I restrict myself to booting linux with a boot disk (which actually seems easier to me than a boot menu since I hardly use the floppy drive anyhoo), is it ok to put the linux partitions at the end of the drive? All of the docs I have seen say that LILO is the one with the problem with >1023 cylinders and make no mention of linux itself. Seems a whole lot simpler than having to make at least 4 partitions... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't I have to do the following otherwise? Cylinder Partition ____________________ 0 Win95/DOS primary <1023 Linux primary any Linux swap any Extra space 2) I have heard talk about problems in Linux related to Ultra DMA/33. The system I am getting has an Asus P2L97 MB, Is there anything special I need to do to get Ultra DMA/33 to work correctly? 3) I read the NT loader + Linux HOWTO about 'peeling' the boot sector for linux off and using it to boot linux from NT, is it possible to do this with linux at a cylinder >1023? How about using the same process to pull off the Windows 95 boot record? === From: Tim <nospam@harborhi.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:38:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux at >1023rd cylinder Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Ed Friese <edfriese@popmail1.vcd.hp.com> wrote: > 1) If I restrict myself to booting linux with a boot disk (which > actually seems easier to me than a boot menu since I hardly use the > floppy drive anyhoo), is it ok to put the linux partitions at the end of > the drive? All of the docs I have seen say that LILO is the one with > the problem with >1023 cylinders and make no mention of linux itself. That's correct. Linux itself can use any and all of the drive, and doesn't care where you put it. Only Lilo has the limitation, and that's the fault of the BIOS. Now, if you have LBA available to you in your BIOS, you can use Lilo above 1024 with no problem. > 3) I read the NT loader + Linux HOWTO about 'peeling' the boot sector > for linux off and using it to boot linux from NT, is it possible to do > this with linux at a cylinder >1023? Yep. That works also. You just put Lilo on Linux's root partition (instead of the MBR), and follow the instructions to add it to the NT boot menu. > How about using the same process to pull off the Windows 95 boot record? NT does that automatically when you install it over 95. === From: "Bayard R. Coolidge" <iget@enuf.spam.asitis> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 13:04:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux at >1023rd cylinder Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Ed Friese <edfriese@popmail1.vcd.hp.com> asked about partitioning his new drive, and Tim <nospam@harborhi.com> replied: >>> Now, if you have LBA available to you in your BIOS, you can >>> use Lilo above 1024 with no problem. PLEASE be careful to note that the problem with LILO and BIOS is with the first 540MB under IDE and 1024MB under SCSI. I have a Barracuda drive with 522 cylinders of 8+MB each (total 4GB), and got a real painful lesson about the difference between cylinders and MB. (I already knew, in a sense, but the RH 5.0 manual said cylinders and the problem is really with MB.) So, set up your MSDOS partition to be about 1000MB or so to leave headroom for cylinder boundaries. I used the recipe at: http://www.windows-nt.com/multiboot/directboot.html and it worked out quite well. My disk is roughly 1GB MSDOS, 1.9GB Linux System, 125MB Linux Swap, and 1 GB NTFS. === From: rsteiner@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) Date: 11 Jan 1998 07:59:05 GMT Subject: Re: Linux at >1023rd cylinder Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Here in comp.os.linux.setup, Bayard R. Coolidge <iget@enuf.spam.asitis> spake unto us, saying: >PLEASE be careful to note that the problem with LILO and BIOS is >with the first 540MB under IDE and 1024MB under SCSI. It has been my understanding that the BIOS boot limitation is based on cylinder count, not some number of MB (tho there is often a correlation between the two). For example, those of us with SCSI controllers that allow for larger drive mapping (my Adaptec 2940U does this by assuming 255 virtual heads) have no problem whatsoever booting from a root partition above 1024MB because the cylinder count is low. === From: mibu@scrum.muc.de (M. Buchenrieder) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:23:35 GMT Subject: Re: Linux at >1023rd cylinder Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Ed Friese <edfriese@popmail1.vcd.hp.com> writes: >I have a new system (or will when I get home tonight) with a single 6.4 >gig hard drive. I would like to put Linux on it, but also (since most >game companies do not make linux versions) windows '95. A quite common setup. >Before I dive >in and install linux, I have a few questions: >1) If I restrict myself to booting linux with a boot disk (which >actually seems easier to me than a boot menu since I hardly use the >floppy drive anyhoo), is it ok to put the linux partitions at the end of >the drive? All of the docs I have seen say that LILO is the one with >the problem with >1023 cylinders and make no mention of linux itself. [...] You won't have a problem with the cyl. # , if using LBA addressing in your CMOS. That's why LBA has been invented. BTW, this limitation is in no way Linux-specific. It applies to all OSes. >2) I have heard talk about problems in Linux related to Ultra DMA/33. >The system I am getting has an Asus P2L97 MB, Is there anything special >I need to do to get Ultra DMA/33 to work correctly? AFAIK, this isn't supported yet. Maybe in one of the 2.1.* kernels ? >3) I read the NT loader + Linux HOWTO about 'peeling' the boot sector >for linux off and using it to boot linux from NT, is it possible to do >this with linux at a cylinder >1023? As long as the kernel itself (the bootsect.lin file) resides below this limit, no prob. But - see above. This limit does not apply unless you're using a BIOS without support for LBA. >How about using the same process to >pull off the Windows 95 boot record? NT (if installed after Win95) will automatically create a dual-boot system, anyways. Besides that, I'd assume that the procedure would be the same . === From: n1ho@aol.com (N1ho) Date: 15 Jan 1998 10:22:23 GMT Subject: Re: Linux at >1023rd cylinder Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup rsteiner@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) replied to my alter-ego's posting with: >For example, those of us with SCSI controllers that allow for larger >drive mapping (my Adaptec 2940U does this by assuming 255 virtual >heads) have no problem whatsoever booting from a root partition >above 1024MB because the cylinder count is low. Well, it could be a BIOS issue, because the case I (Bayard, N1HO) cited on my Asus P2L97-DS was with the Adaptec 7880 chip set !! (Which, strangely, looks like an Adaptec 2940UW to Linux :-) I'm using the Seagate Barracuda (ST15150W), so there's probably something funny done in the BIOS translation to change the virtual geometry of the drive. The manual for this drive says it's got 3,711 user accessible cylinders, 21 read/write heads and 1 servo head. Average bytes/track is 64,160. Red Hat 5.0's fdisk claimed I have 522 cylinders, and I had to back down my swap partition a little to fit the next lower cylinder (125.mumble MB). Hmmm.... === From: "Bart Herbots" <bart.herbots@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 22:49:02 +0100 Subject: W95 + NT4 + RedHat5.0 on 1 harddisk Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup Hello, This is the process I followed I started from a clean HD (4,338MB) I used W95 "fdisk" to create a primary partition(1200MB) and made it active. I installed W95 on it. Then I went into W95 and I started the installation process for NT4. I created an extended partition and 1 logical drive of 2500MB. After installation I was now able to choose after the Bios-startup between NT4 and W95. So I had 4338 - 1200 - 2500 = 638MB left of available space for the installation of RedHat5.0 I booted the pc from the RedHat Boot Diskette. I used Diskdruid to create partitions (swap, /, /usr and /home). I was asked where to install LILO and choose for the rootpartition. I now had 3 OS systems but I knew that I had to alter or remove NT4 bootmanager. So I decided to use another commercial bootmanager. After the boot process, I get the menu from the commercial bootmanager where I can choose between NT4 and LINUX(it appears under a different name) When I choose linux, the linux bootprocess starts, I fill in 'root' and my password and I'm ready to use linux. When I choose NT4, I am presented by the menu from NT4 bootmanager ( NT4, NT4 VGA, Windows) When I choose NT4, this OS starts loading and I can use it without a problem. But when I choose Windows, I get a black screen saying 'starting windows 95", I get the W95 logo and then back to dos, with the message that the "HIMEM.SYS" file is missing, although I found it in c:\windows. At the c:\ I typed MEM and saw that there was no upper memory used and that there was 0 extended memory. So what do I have to do to get W95 back on track without disturbing NT4 and Linux because they are both doing well. === From: thomas <tc15858@SWT.EDU> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:18:47 -0600 Subject: booting linux from NTLDR Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup I have successfully followed the LINUX+NT mini-HOWTO and someone else's advice, but with some slight modifications (the advice), I have installed RHL5.0 and done these steps from a bash prompt, but cant figure where I am going wrong... (before install was complete, I go to VC2 and do this:) mount /dev/hda3 /mnt -which gives me access to /mnt/etc/lilo.conf which I modify to look like boot=/dev/fd0 map=/mnt/boot/map install=/mnt/boot/boot.b prompt timeout=50 image=/mnt/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.31 label=linux root=/mnt/dev/hda3 read-only I then run: /mnt/sbin/lilo -C /mnt/etc/lilo.conf mknod /dev/fd0 b 2 0 -to access the floppy dd if=/dev/fd0 of=/bootsect.lnx bs=512 count=1 mcopy /bootsect.lnx a:/bootsect.lnx I have modified the boot.ini and copied the file to c: so all goes well, but I assumed that LILO would come up and begin the load, but I get the error: BOOT: I/O error reading device please insert another disk should I have a floppy in the drive as indicated by lilo.conf..? but I want to boot from the drive, not a floppy, is there modifications I need to make to lilo.conf..? Has anyone besides the person I have been speaking got this to work, or can see where my error(s) is(are)... thank you much === From: thomas <tc15858@SWT.EDU> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:55:35 -0600 Subject: Re: Booting Linux from NTLDR Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup I finally figured it out!!! that was quite exciting.. I think that the linux+NT HOWTO could use some revision.. I think that this is a simple process now that I got it, but the HOWTO is somewhat vague as when or how to do certain things... IF you are having trouble dual booting linux & NT mail me and I will _try_ to help... no promises, I too am new to this. I think that where all the confusion comes from is that when you install from a CD, your floppy is setup as root, and you must mount your HD(this is done for you at the end of the install), which would cause the need for modifications of lilo.conf I changed everything to look under /mnt first except boot=/dev/fd0 reran LILO w/ a blank floppy in the drive /mnt/sbin/lilo -C /mnt/etc/lilo.conf then did this with floppy still in dd if=/dev/fd0 of=/mnt/bootsect.lnx bs=512 count=1 then finally a mcopy /mnt/bootsect.lnx a:/bootsect.lnx copy this to root of C:(NTFS/NT partition) and add this line to the end of c:\boot.ini c:\bootsect.lnx="Linux Red Hat 5.0" works like a charm, now to configure all the rest of the stuff, good luck to the rest of ya! === ((Attributions of the following messages should be more reliable. -- Joe B.)) Subject: Linux and NT Boot loader From: Vince Negri <vn@aslnet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:25:28 +0100 There seem to have been a lot of NT Boot loader questions recently. I thought I'd share my method which has always worked. (YMMV :) 1) Partition drive with one small primary partition and one extended for NT. 2) Put DOS on the small partition (not necessary, but helps a whole lot) 3) Install NT onto the larger partition. 4) NT Boot loader should have NT & DOS on it. 5) Now install Linux onto the rest of the drive. Do *NOT* install LILO onto the HD - instead create a boot floppy when asked. Leave the MBR alone!! 6) Check boot floppy is working and NT loader still happy. 7) Boot into Linux. Mount the small fat partition read-write as /mnt/dos. 8) Edit lilo.conf as usual, but change the target from /dev/fd0 to /mnt/dos/bootsect.lnx (that's right, specify a file not a device) 9) Run LILO once with --test to check, then for real. 10) Copy the kernel onto a dir in the FAT partition. 11) Reboot to DOS. 12) Attrib the boot.ini and add an entry for linux: "Linux"=C:\bootsect.lnx 13) Reboot and you should be able to pick Linux from the NT boot menu. If not, you can get back into your linux world using loadlin and the kernel you dumped onto the FAT partition earlier. Now since LILO is pointing straight at the bootsect.lnx file, when you change lilo.conf a simple re-run of /sbin/lilo is all you need - none of this dd stuff I keep seeing. And if everything goes pop you can get back via the backup kernel on the FAT partition. Hope this is useful to someone - I think it should still work (my last install was of 5.1) === Subject: Re: Linux and NT Boot loader From: Jan Carlson <janc@iname.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 18:35:52 -0400 Mark Dzmura wrote: > > Vince Negri wrote: > > > There seem to have been a lot of NT Boot > > loader questions recently. I thought I'd > > share my method which has always worked. > > > > I have never had any problems installing Linux after NT, > putting Lilo on the MBR, and adding an entry for NT. > Lilo boots everything! > > Am I missing something?? This works perfectly here too with Red Hat 6. Just keep your lilo floppy, so you can boot linux and restore lilo to the MBR after the frequently necessary MS reinstalls which may overwrite the MBR. Recent lilo versions CAN boot anything, even Solaris. Nothing stands in the way but FUD. Lilo can even boot Windows from the 2nd hard disk, and it can hide one Windows from another, to keep them both happy. === Subject: Re: 13GB with RH6.0 and NT (BIOS translation) From: Jan Carlson <janc@iname.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 19:07:06 -0400 You should let lilo install into 2 places: 1. on an emergency boot diskette 2. into the MBR (yes, this works with NT and Red Hat 6) BUT, and this is important, the Linux Native partition that contains the /boot directory MUST begin and end within the first 1023 cylinders of the hard disk. This is a bios limitation for booting which Disk Druid enforces just to be safe. This usually means, that even in LBA mode, that Linux partition cannot end after 8.2 gigabytes. On your 13GB disk, you MUST make a Linux Native partition that lies totally within the first 8.2G, or 1023 cylinders. Suggested layout: /dev/hda1 primary, Windows NT, 2G or less /dev/hda2 extended /dev/hda5 logical, 127Mb, Linux swap /dev/hda6 logical, 4Gb, Linux Native /dev/hda7 logical, other WinNT or Linux etc. Let Windows NT, DOS, create all partitions, DO NOT have LINUX create them. When you get to installing Linux, use Linux FDISK to change the linux partition types. There can also be problems if the main Windows NT partition is larger than 2G. So, you may want to have several WinNT partitions. If you follow the scheme above, you can put lilo into the MBR (the easy way). Lilo CAN boot Linux or WinNT. Or, put lilo into /dev/hda6 (Linux Native ending within first 1023 cylinders) and use your method below which should then work fine. Karl Henning wrote: > > I have the problem on 6.0 and Win NT on my 13GB HDD. I install NT first as > required. In RH fdisk > I specify on extended partition with two logical partitions (Linux swap, > Linux Native) and when it comes to the point where > it asks me install LiLo I tell it on /dev/hda1 (NT's loader because I later > would go back and use recovery disks) versus root /dev/hda6. the plan > was to insert the first NT installation floppy, and follow the prompts. When > given the option, I chose "recovery". Inserted my recovery disk. When > given the choice, I recover ONLY the system files - NOTHING ELSE. If > prompted to replace a file, I refuse. > > NT will then reboot, and there should be another option on the boot menu > (MS-DOS?). Rename that option to Linux, and save the file BOOTSEC.DOS it's > the BOOTLNK.LNX file I want > > HOWEVER,at LiLo Installation menu I was not allowed to save LiLo on the NT > MBR nor on my own root. so I could not carry out the rest of my plan. > > Oh I try to use the 3 installation and recovery floppies and cannot seem to > get NT's loader working now either. > not sure what actually happened when I told Linux install to write on top of > /dev/hda1 when it said there was an error saving Loader. > also what about the menu for telling Linux loader what systems to load? do > I specify NT? I did not think that would be appropriate since I am using NT > to load Linux. ===