FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-02-2008, 11:31 PM
tns1
 
Default upgrading dual boot fedora - partitions

I have a dual boot XP + FC3 I am upgrading to FC8. Problem is I don't
remember all those partition mysteries, and I don't want to stomp my XP
install. I don't care if I preserve any of my FC3 files, I just thought
an upgrade might be safer than a fresh install.


When I started to 'upgrade', I got a warning about /dev/hda6 not being
mountable and how I might have problems if I continued, so I quit. The
FC8 installer docs mention there may be (new) problems with unlabeled
partitions, and it does appear that several are not labeled:


/dev/hda1, label=none, type ntfs, ID 7,
cyl: 0 7564
/dev/hda2, label="/boot", type linux, ID 83, cyl: 7565
7575
/dev/hda3, label="/", type linux, ID 83, cyl:
7576 10094

/dev/hda4, label=none, type W95 ext'd LBA, ID f, cyl:10095 10337
/dev/hda5, label=none, type linux swap, ID 82, cyl:10095 10229
/dev/hda6, label=none, typeW95 FAT32 LBA, ID c, cyl:10230 10336

I know that the 1st partition is XP drive C, the next two are linux
/boot and /. The 4th partition is of extended type, which I believe is
split into the 5th and 6th partition. The 5th partition is linux swap,
and I think the 6th partition was just the odd bytes left over after
splitting everything up, and even though it shows up in XP as drive F it
isn't really used.


I added volume labels in XP for partition 1 & 6, but it when I booted in
FC3, it didn't make any difference as far as what $blkid and fdisk
report. I guess volume labels are not the same as partition labels.


If I instead go down the path of a fresh install with FC8 and choose to
make custom partition assignments, the installer shows me a table of
what it thinks I have - very similar to what I get with $fdisk /dev/hda
except the "start" and "end" numbers (cylinders?) are not the same.


For instance instead of
/dev/hda1 start 0 end 7564 as I posted above, the FC8 installer says
/dev/sda1 start 1 end 7120. The other partition numbers differ as well.
Without knowing more about these numbers, it looks like the installer is
going to mess up my XP partition simply because it has the math wrong on
partition size. The installer shows the partition label fields but does
not let me edit them.


So really three questions:
How would I add partition labels if I really needed to?
Do I really need to?
Why doesn't the installer report the same sizes as fdisk?


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-03-2008, 03:37 AM
Tim
 
Default upgrading dual boot fedora - partitions

On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 16:31 -0800, tns1 wrote:
> I just thought an upgrade might be safer than a fresh install.

Why?

Leaving "safeness" aside, an update often entails trying to sort out the
mess of old things that clash with new things, that didn't get
updated/replaced/moved.

> When I started to 'upgrade', I got a warning about /dev/hda6 not being
> mountable and how I might have problems if I continued, so I quit.

You'd have to say why it couldn't be mounted. Drive errors being one
reason that you'd need to check on before continuing. File system
errors are something you can deal with by just wiping off the partition
and installing anew.

> I added volume labels in XP for partition 1 & 6, but it when I booted in
> FC3, it didn't make any difference as far as what $blkid and fdisk
> report. I guess volume labels are not the same as partition labels.

Yes/no... They're similar things, but how XP and EXT3 go about doing
their business is very different, anyway.

> So really three questions:
> How would I add partition labels if I really needed to?

You can use e2label or tune2fs.

> Do I really need to?

Yes, mostly... Fedora uses labels for mounting things. You can
manually configure things to use the devices, as prior releases did, but
you'd have to manually tweak things.

> Why doesn't the installer report the same sizes as fdisk?

Don't know that one. Partitioning seems to be a black art, especially
seeing how half the tools disagree with each other. Best advice is
usually to use just one tool for partitioning, not a cluster of
different ones.

But if you're concerned about the installer futzing up partitions, first
do backups before proceeding. Second, you can re-partition, and
reformat (if you need) your drive before installing. I'd suggest that
if you don't reformat, you delete old files and directories, at least.
Then during the install, choose manual partitioning, choose the
partitions that you want to install to, and deselect options to reformat
them.

--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-03-2008, 01:26 PM
Aaron Konstam
 
Default upgrading dual boot fedora - partitions

On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 16:31 -0800, tns1 wrote:
> I have a dual boot XP + FC3 I am upgrading to FC8. Problem is I don't
> remember all those partition mysteries, and I don't want to stomp my XP
> install. I don't care if I preserve any of my FC3 files, I just thought
> an upgrade might be safer than a fresh install.
I agree with Tim <ignored_mailbox> installing rather than upgrading is
the way to go. Especially from FC3 to f8.
>
--
================================================== =====================
I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool. -- Katharine
Whitehorn
================================================== =====================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
o

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-03-2008, 02:24 PM
Timothy Murphy
 
Default upgrading dual boot fedora - partitions

tns1 wrote:

> I have a dual boot XP + FC3 I am upgrading to FC8. Problem is I don't
> remember all those partition mysteries, and I don't want to stomp my XP
> install. I don't care if I preserve any of my FC3 files, I just thought
> an upgrade might be safer than a fresh install.

> So really three questions:
> How would I add partition labels if I really needed to?
> Do I really need to?

Yes.
You can use e2label to add labels to disks.
(You must use mkswap for the swap partition, I think.)
Then you have to modify /etc/fstab and /etc/grub.conf to use labels.

I'm a great fan of upgrading,
but even I would not try upgrading from FC-3 to Fedora-8.

Incidentally, save your MBR with
dd if=/dev/hda of=mbr bs=512 count=1
Then you can re-install it (eg with Knoppix) if it all goes wrong.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-05-2008, 03:49 AM
tns1
 
Default upgrading dual boot fedora - partitions

tns1 wrote:
I have a dual boot XP + FC3 I am upgrading to FC8. Problem is I don't
remember all those partition mysteries, and I don't want to stomp my
XP install. I don't care if I preserve any of my FC3 files, I just
thought an upgrade might be safer than a fresh install.


When I started to 'upgrade', I got a warning about /dev/hda6 not being
mountable and how I might have problems if I continued, so I quit. The
FC8 installer docs mention there may be (new) problems with unlabeled
partitions, and it does appear that several are not labeled:


/dev/hda1, label=none, type ntfs, ID 7,
cyl: 0 7564
/dev/hda2, label="/boot", type linux, ID 83, cyl:
7565 7575
/dev/hda3, label="/", type linux, ID 83, cyl:
7576 10094

/dev/hda4, label=none, type W95 ext'd LBA, ID f, cyl:10095 10337
/dev/hda5, label=none, type linux swap, ID 82, cyl:10095
10229

/dev/hda6, label=none, typeW95 FAT32 LBA, ID c, cyl:10230 10336

I know that the 1st partition is XP drive C, the next two are linux
/boot and /. The 4th partition is of extended type, which I believe is
split into the 5th and 6th partition. The 5th partition is linux swap,
and I think the 6th partition was just the odd bytes left over after
splitting everything up, and even though it shows up in XP as drive F
it isn't really used.


I added volume labels in XP for partition 1 & 6, but it when I booted
in FC3, it didn't make any difference as far as what $blkid and fdisk
report. I guess volume labels are not the same as partition labels.


If I instead go down the path of a fresh install with FC8 and choose
to make custom partition assignments, the installer shows me a table
of what it thinks I have - very similar to what I get with $fdisk
/dev/hda except the "start" and "end" numbers (cylinders?) are not the
same.


For instance instead of
/dev/hda1 start 0 end 7564 as I posted above, the FC8 installer says
/dev/sda1 start 1 end 7120. The other partition numbers differ as
well. Without knowing more about these numbers, it looks like the
installer is going to mess up my XP partition simply because it has
the math wrong on partition size. The installer shows the partition
label fields but does not let me edit them.


So really three questions:
How would I add partition labels if I really needed to?
Do I really need to?
Why doesn't the installer report the same sizes as fdisk?


Adding a label with mkswap was enough to keep the installer from
complaining about /dev/hda6 not being mountable. This partition turned
out to be where XP keeps its restore points, so it wasn't unused like I
thought. I fixed up fstab just to see if FC3 would still boot. This site
seemed to the point, although I didn't follow it exactly:
http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/MountDisksByLabel
After backing up the XP partition with partimage, I went ahead and let
the installer format the 3 obvious linux partitions, and it seems to
have turned out fine despite the funny numbers it was showing.


One surprise was how long it took to back up the partition with
partimage. Although every piece of gear I have is 10/100, I never got
more than 10Mbits/sec. It took > 8hours for 32GB! I admit I just
fumbled through setting up samba and the link, so maybe I caused the
problem, or is the compression that much of a drag?







--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:05 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org