On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 03:04, SnapafunFrank wrote:

> OK. You are teaching me something here but I haven't quite nailed it yet.
> 
> Re partitions:]
> 
> /dev/hda1   *           1         125     1004031   83  Linux
> /dev/hda2             126        2937    22587390   85  Linux extended
> /dev/hda3            2938        4434    12024652+  83  Linux
> /dev/hda4            4435        4870     3502170    6  FAT16
> /dev/hda5             126         250     1004031   83  Linux
> /dev/hda6             251        1496    10008463+  83  Linux
> /dev/hda7            1497        1559      506016   82  Linux swap
> /dev/hda8            1560        2805    10008463+  83  Linux
> /dev/hda9            2806        2937     1060258+  83  Linux
> 
> and:
> 
> /dev/hdb1   *           1        1827    14675346    c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
> /dev/hdb2            1828        1829       16065   83  Linux
> /dev/hdb3            1830        2491     5317515    f  W95 Ext'd (LBA)
> /dev/hdb5            1830        1841       96358+  83  Linux
> /dev/hdb6            1842        1853       96358+  83  Linux
> /dev/hdb7            1854        2263     3293293+  83  Linux
> /dev/hdb8            2264        2295      257008+  82  Linux swap
> /dev/hdb9            2296        2491     1574338+  83  Linux
> 
> Now I'm lost with the "non-FAT' statement. As you can see I have FAT on 
> both HDDs so your reply suggested that I needed to configure things?

No, that's not what he was saying.  He was just saying that the drive
letter C will ONLY be assigned to partitions that winblows stuff
understands, and that happens to be restricted to winblows partitions
and not non-dos or non-ntfs stuff.

Technically you can have a fat anywhere you like.  I personally would
have done a type "c" which is Win95 FAT32 in LBA mode.  Most of the time
that's what win98 chooses for itself.  The file system is a little
faster and allows for larger partitions.


>   I 
> do recall that when attempting to update to Mandrake 10 that lilo 
> thought that my FAT partitions were windows OS's but I didn't see this 
> when I went ahead with a clean install. I have fought hard with this 
> partition problem for some time and feel that I might be missing 
> something real simple, so forgive me for persevering. Right now 
> everything runs fine in this regard but the next time I go to update or 
> try something different I can see me getting balder.

What you probably ought to do is hang with what you have for a bit until
you get sorted out and get all your ducks in a row, and then decide what
you're layout is going to be based on what you know and what you need.

What would be handy is if you could post your /etc/fstab so that I could
see how you are mounting these partitions.  There's a simple method to
layout and then there are more unecessarily complex methods; it seems to
me that what you are doing may be a little more complex than it needs to
be.

LX


____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
____________________________________________________

Reply via email to