linux_NT_dualboot

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.

===


the rest of The Pile (a partial mailing list archive)

doom@kzsu.stanford.edu