Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, you wrote: > Andrew George wrote: > > > > > [snipped] > > May have already been answered, but in case it hasn't ... > > > > > > Heres a related question > > The following is part of my partition table > > Device Mount Point Distribution > > /hdb5 /boot Debian > > /hdb6 / Debian > > /hdc6 /boot Mandrake > > /hdc7 / Mandrake > > > > [snipped] > > > For example...If I'm in Mandrake with dev/hdb5 mounted as /mnt/debboot > > should I specify the kernal location for Debian as /mnt/debboot/vmlinuz-2.0.38 > > and Lilo will set the MBR to go to hdb5 (even though it will mount hdb5 as /boot > > when the kernal reads Debian's fstab)? > > No. When you'ld boot into Deb, lilo would look for the kernel image in > /mnt/debboot/ in Deb's / filesystem, because that's how you'ld have defined or > spec'd it in your lilo configuration. > Actually tried it yesterday and it does work. I think LILO needs to be able to find the kernel using a valid path in lilo.conf when it writes the MBR, but it writes the MBR using disk geometry location not filesystem tree location (makes sense, there is no filesystem at that point) heres the lilo.conf I used - only hassle with it is I've got to remember to mount the other boot partition in the same place when I want to run an update on the MBR (/mnt/spare is of course /boot when Debian's running) boot=/dev/hda read-only prompt timeout=150 vga=normal image=/boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/hdc6 label=linux append="" other=/dev/hda1 label=win table=/dev/hda image=/mnt/spare/vmlinuz-2.0.38 root=/dev/hdb7 label=deb append="" Thanks for everyones comments on LILO recently, I would never have figured this out without reading what everyone had to say Andrew
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Andrew George wrote: > [snipped] May have already been answered, but in case it hasn't ... > > > Heres a related question > The following is part of my partition table > Device Mount Point Distribution > /hdb5 /boot Debian > /hdb6 / Debian > /hdc6 /boot Mandrake > /hdc7 / Mandrake > [snipped] > For example...If I'm in Mandrake with dev/hdb5 mounted as /mnt/debboot > should I specify the kernal location for Debian as /mnt/debboot/vmlinuz-2.0.38 > and Lilo will set the MBR to go to hdb5 (even though it will mount hdb5 as /boot > when the kernal reads Debian's fstab)? No. When you'ld boot into Deb, lilo would look for the kernel image in /mnt/debboot/ in Deb's / filesystem, because that's how you'ld have defined or spec'd it in your lilo configuration. If the kernel image for Deb is in /boot of that configuration, then you need to specify the kernel image and location as this for lilo. This means that either you need to copy your Deb kernel image to your Mandrake /boot directory, or create a symlink to it in your Mdk /boot directory. This sym link would be /boot/vmlinuz-2.0.38 -> /mnt/hdb5/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.38 or /boot/vm... -> /mnt/hdb5/vm... I think it'ld need to be /mnt/hdb5/boot/vm... The boot part does not actually exist in your /mnt path, except once /dev/hdb5 has been mounted. /mnt/hdb5 would be mounted to /dev/hdb5, however I'm not sure if /dev/hdb5 actually needs to be mounted. This would be easy and quick to test, but if you don't want to bother with trial and error, then simply mount /dev/hdb5 to /mnt/hdb5 (or vice versa - in wording) before modifying your lilo conf. If you don't use /mnt/hdb5 for the name of this mount point, then I'ld suggest not placing an entry for this mount in your fstab file. For example, if you name it instead /mnt/hdd, and you define the fstab entry as /dev/hdb5, then to mount /mnt/hdd to any other /dev filesystem, you'ld need to either type out the entire mount command, for mount to not use fstab, or you'ld need to modify fstab, when ever you'ld want to mount a different filesystem to this mount point. If you name it /mnt/hdb5, then you can safely define the entry in fstab, for /dev/hdb5. That's why I used this for the mount point name. Directories don't take up any space worthy of mention, especially when it's only the hardlink of the directory; therefore, you can create as many different mount points in /mnt as you want and then define these in fstab, probably with the noauto option, to avoid needing to type out the complete mount command each time, letting you mount this filesystem for example by simply running mount /mnt/hdb5 which is shorter than mount -vt ext2 /dev/hdb5 /mnt/hdb5 When using the former case, mount automatically looks in fstab for the definition of the mount point. F.e., I have two Linux configurations with different filesystems for /boot, /, /usr, /usr/local, /usr/src, /home, /var, and /tmp. One of these configs is the primary Linux config and the other is test/build, relative to the primary config; therefore, I created /mnt points named boot, root, usr, local, src, home, var and tmp (besides also a:, c:, floppy, and cdrom). Then I created fstab file entries for each of these, because when ever I say, for example, mount /mnt/boot I always want it mounted to the same partition. If I ever want to access my other single and small filesystem configuration, then I merely run mount typing out the full mount command, mapping it to /mnt/root, albeit could also mount it /mnt/boot or any other /mnt point which is not in use. e.g. mount -vt ext2 /dev/hdb2 /mnt/root If I want to access /boot of that config, then it's through /mnt/root/boot. If I want to access the /var directory, then it's /mnt/root/var, or for /root, it's /mnt/root/root. Based on this, you'ld need to create the symlink in your Mdk /boot directory, accessing the Deb /boot through /mnt/debroot/boot/... Add the fstab entry and you can mount by simply running mount /mnt/hdb5 and ls /mnt/hdb5/boot/vm* would show all of the vm* files in the /boot of Deb. This extra rap may be helpful in illustrating the use and flexibility of mount. Hopefully that's not too long winded. mike > Trying to burn my boot floppies (and play with another distribution while I've > got a spare Hard Drive) > > Andrew
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Mike Corbeil wrote: > However, in following the general guideline, I make /boot a separate filesystem or > partition, and do this regardless of the filesystem being above or below the 1024 > limit. The reason for this generalized approach is merely to make sure that there's > more flexibility for future modification to the system, and I don't think it can > hurt to make /boot a separate fs, even if the entire configuration fits below cyl > 1024. Well, it depends on your BIOS, because at boot time lilo MUST use BIOS calls to find the kernel (the kernel being not yet loaded, linux's IDE driver is not yet active). If you have a recent MB and BIOS, no problem, the 1024-cylinder limit doesn't apply, because your BIOS knows how to access the disk even above the 1024 limit if needed (usually via LBA, i.e. without even _using_ cylinder/track/head values). But if you have an older BIOS (usually on [34]86's) that depends on such cyl/trk/head values, you HAVE TO put your kernel below the 1024 limit, or you will not be able to boot ... and beware here, lilo won't even complain when you execute it, but it still won't boot !!! The only way (on an ext2 fs) to be sure that a file is at such a physical address, is to put THE WHOLE FILESYSTEM (the /boot) completely under the limit. -- Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 74 Annemasse France old Linux fan
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
> You're perfectly right: lilo only needs to find the kernel image, > and you could often, in theory, put that anywhere as long as you > specify it correctly in lilo.conf > > However, the /boot directory is part of the File System Standard (FSS) > in linux, and this standard has been elaborated for several reasons: > .. mainly to aim for better interoperability between different > Linux distributions. > .. in the case of /boot, this also provides a suitable mount point > to mount a different partition. This is mostly used for older > BIOSes that can't deal with the 1024-cylinder limit, so that > you can make sure that a boot kernel will be physically below > the limit. > > Heres a related question The following is part of my partition table Device Mount Point Distribution /hdb5 /boot Debian /hdb6 / Debian /hdc6 /boot Mandrake /hdc7 / Mandrake Two distributions running. Set up so that neither is in the the others FSTAB with those mountpoints (for instance if I'm running Debian, I mount /dev/hdc7 as /mnt/Mandrakeroot) Nowin that situation...Setting lilo by specifying the base image as /boot/vmlinuz with different root directories for each distro results in LILO dying (probably becasuse it's looking for both Kernals in the same partition) So the question is...does lilo translate based on existing mountpoints to partition locations? For example...If I'm in Mandrake with dev/hdb5 mounted as /mnt/debboot should I specify the kernal location for Debian as /mnt/debboot/vmlinuz-2.0.38 and Lilo will set the MBR to go to hdb5 (even though it will mount hdb5 as /boot when the kernal reads Debian's fstab)? Trying to burn my boot floppies (and play with another distribution while I've got a spare Hard Drive) Andrew
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Jean-Louis Debert wrote: > Mike Corbeil wrote: > > Actually, I guess that the boot directory doesn't need to be named /boot, as > > long as the correct path is specified in the boot configuration. This may be > > incorrect; however, the reason I say this is because linuxconf lilo boot > > configuration requires the name of the kernel image file as well as the > > directory path, at least when linuxconf isn't run in or from the /boot > > directory, or the directory the kernel image(s) are located in. > > > > Otherwise, if /boot is strictly required, then I don't know why linuxconf would > > require for the directory to be specified. > > You're perfectly right: lilo only needs to find the kernel image, > and you could often, in theory, put that anywhere as long as you > specify it correctly in lilo.conf What I was wondering is if not only the vmlinuz kernel file was sufficient, or if I'ld need to create symlinks to all of the /boot files associated with a kernel existing only on another configuration's partition, which is invisible if not mounted. For example, assume the following: Linux config #1: /dev/hda5 - /boot (vmlinuz-2.0.36-3, only) Config #2: /dev/hdb2 - /boot (vmlinuz -2.0.34-0.6, 2.0.36-3, only) Config #3: /dev/hdb5 - /boot (vmlinuz -2.0.36-3, and 2.2.x, only) /dev/hdb6 - /root Config #4: /dev/hdb13 - /boot (Mdk 7.0.2, vmlinux 2.2.y) /dev/hdb14 - /root (Mdk 7.0.2) Configs #1-3 are RH. Now, let's say I want to configure and run lilo from on config #4, say using linuxconf. Can I simply mount /boot for configs #1-3 and create symlinks in #4's /boot directory to the vmlinuz kernels in the /boot directories of configs #1-3, and then run linuxconf successfully, without a glitch? That's what I meant, that is, that this would work and that symlinks to the system map files would not also be needed. I think that I was just trying to be safe, before actually doing this. On the other hand, that was probably just a little nervousness, because linuxconf doesn't ask for the other files; only for the kernel image file itself. It may be necessary to also mount the / filesystems, but that's not important, at least not wrt the question I had in mind. Hence, between your reply and this additional thinking, while recognizing that I was just a little nervous about this, I think this is the answer, that is, other than getting rid of some of my Linux configurations. However, until I get an hd.img file for the Mandrake 7.0v2 cdrom I got with the Planete Linux mag, I only have one unnecessary configuration. Once I get this Mandrake cdrom (not made by Mandrake itself as far as I can tell), then, well, I may still only have one unnecessary Linux configuration to get rid of, if I don't get rid of any between now and getting this cdrom installed. I prefer having at least a couple configurations from each Linux distrib installed. > > > However, the /boot directory is part of the File System Standard (FSS) > in linux, and this standard has been elaborated for several reasons: > .. mainly to aim for better interoperability between different > Linux distributions. > .. in the case of /boot, this also provides a suitable mount point > to mount a different partition. This is mostly used for older > BIOSes that can't deal with the 1024-cylinder limit, so that > you can make sure that a boot kernel will be physically below > the limit. Was aware of most of that. Wasn't thoroughly aware or remembering the first .., though. However, in following the general guideline, I make /boot a separate filesystem or partition, and do this regardless of the filesystem being above or below the 1024 limit. The reason for this generalized approach is merely to make sure that there's more flexibility for future modification to the system, and I don't think it can hurt to make /boot a separate fs, even if the entire configuration fits below cyl 1024. I'll experiment with creating only symlinks to the vmlinuz kernel images and omitting do the same for the /boot system map files. Doing that would probably only be unnecessary extra. Part of the intent of the question, though, is that some programs seem to not accept symlinks, and I don't recall which program I recently encountered this problem with, but this happened within the past couple or few days (am spread over many, varied tasks and the name of that program is currently, well, absent - still haven't gotten any sleep, been up all night working on various aspects of my Linux configurations, so am zonked, deep fried, right now). Thanks anyway, mike
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
On 14/04/00 0:06, Alan Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] is reported to have said: >Kirkyour designations of boot1, boot2etc. Do partitions >exist with those namesnot!? Ok, do me a favor. You say >Caldera is running, so go into a console in Caldera and type >fdisk /dev/hda then do a p command and capture the results and >post them. Ok? No, that's not their names, I just wrote that to show what they were being used for... Kirk vice versa Translations - French to English, English to French | Technical Writing Traductions francais-anglais, anglais-francais | Redaction technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.mcelhearn.com Kirk McElhearn | Chemin de la Lauze | 05600 Guillestre | France
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Mike Corbeil wrote: > Actually, I guess that the boot directory doesn't need to be named /boot, as > long as the correct path is specified in the boot configuration. This may be > incorrect; however, the reason I say this is because linuxconf lilo boot > configuration requires the name of the kernel image file as well as the > directory path, at least when linuxconf isn't run in or from the /boot > directory, or the directory the kernel image(s) are located in. > > Otherwise, if /boot is strictly required, then I don't know why linuxconf would > require for the directory to be specified. You're perfectly right: lilo only needs to find the kernel image, and you could often, in theory, put that anywhere as long as you specify it correctly in lilo.conf However, the /boot directory is part of the File System Standard (FSS) in linux, and this standard has been elaborated for several reasons: .. mainly to aim for better interoperability between different Linux distributions. .. in the case of /boot, this also provides a suitable mount point to mount a different partition. This is mostly used for older BIOSes that can't deal with the 1024-cylinder limit, so that you can make sure that a boot kernel will be physically below the limit. -- Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 74 Annemasse France old Linux fan
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Actually, I guess that the boot directory doesn't need to be named /boot, as long as the correct path is specified in the boot configuration. This may be incorrect; however, the reason I say this is because linuxconf lilo boot configuration requires the name of the kernel image file as well as the directory path, at least when linuxconf isn't run in or from the /boot directory, or the directory the kernel image(s) are located in. Otherwise, if /boot is strictly required, then I don't know why linuxconf would require for the directory to be specified. Is there are slight inconsistency or discrepancy in this sense, or is there a valid technical reason I'm not aware of? Anyone know? mike
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> Kirkyour designations of boot1, boot2etc. Do partitions
> exist with those namesnot!? Ok, do me a favor. You say
> Caldera is running, so go into a console in Caldera and type
> fdisk /dev/hda then do a p command and capture the results and
> post them. Ok?
This report is definitely needed to verify this /boot{n} information.
I believe to understand why Kirk might want to create /boot{n} directories or
filesystems next to each other, or what ever, but, as far as I'm aware, the
boot directory for Linux (RedHat and Mandrake anyway) is supposed to be named
/boot. The reason I think to understand the intent, or a possible intent, is
that LILO or linuxconf doesn't accept kernel images it cannot see.
One way around this, since Kirk seems to want to keep a dos partition, would be
to use System Commander, or any other tool which doesn't need to see all of the
bootable kernel images in the same directory or filesystem, or configuration,
what ever.
I use LILO, have no problems with it, except for the one just mentioned, and
because LILO supports 16 operating systems or configurations, lilo is adequate
for my needs.
What are the advantages and disadvantages between the various boot
managers? Is there any significant reason to not use lilo?
However, the one problem I have with LILO is the aforementioned, and it bugs
me. If lilo (or linuxconf anyway) doesn't see the kernel image for a
configuration the user wishes to add, then linuxconf (and possibly lilo)
rejects the configuration.
Because this thread is somewhat related to what I want to do, one possible work
around which has come to mind is to mount the other /boot filesystems and
create symbolic links in the immediate /boot directory, to the various kernel
images I want to be able to boot using LILO. These symbolic links would then
be specified as the boot images in linuxconf LILO configuration.
I haven't gotten around to testing this out, yet, though; therefore perhaps
someone here could say whether or not this would or should work.
If this would work, then this would mean that Kirk's SUSE configuration could
be installed such that all of the filesystems for the configuration are
contiguous. Kirk would merely need to boot into Caldera, mount the /boot
filesystems of the various configurations he wants to be able to boot into,
create the symbolic links, and then modify the boot loader.
However, it seems kind of peculiar that LILO or linuxconf accepts the DOS
partition, without it being mounted, while rejecting kernel images from other
Linux configurations when these images aren't visible. Why this discrepancy?
Why should lilo or linuxconf "care" and prevent the administrator from doing
this, while the images aren't visible? So what if the administrator makes a
mistake and when rebooting can't boot into the configurations defined
incorrectly.
Is there any technically valid reason for this to not be allowed?
I don't think it'ld cause any damage to the hardware or system, if an incorrect
configuration is defined for the LILO prompt, or at least there shouldn't be
any such danger. Many configuration files can be modified without these kinds
of strict restrictions, with errors caught at runtime.
If there's danger of damage to hardware or the system, then the restriction
would be understandable; however, why should this kind of danger exist, if an
invalid configuration was allowed for a boot configuration?
Doesn't presently make any sense to me.
mike
> Alan
>
> Kirk McElhearn wrote:
> >
> > Thanks to all of you who helped me out be explaining how to handle this.
> > I got the HD and installed it, so I thought I would send you a report.
> >
> > Installing the HD was easy. It came with partitioning software, and I
> > set it up as follows:
> >
> > boot1
> > boot2
> > boot3
> > boot4
> > boot5
> > swap
> > backup
> > data1
> > data2
> > data3
> > data4
> > data5
> >
> > I first created these partitions with the drive's software as dos
> > partitions, then, under Mandrake, used Disk Drake to change them all to
> > Linux partitions, with the exception of the backup partition - I want to
> > be able to access this from Windows as well.
> >
> > So, with the HD set up, I tried to install a few different distributions.
> > I left Mandrake on the old HD for the meantime, and tried to install the
> > following on the new HD:
> >
> > Caldera OpenLinux
> > Corel Linux
> > Suse
> > Red Hat 6.2 beta
> >
> > Unfortunately, this did not go as planned. Caldera was the only one I
> > could fully install. It started up, but there was no option during the
> > install to create a boot disk (I don't want to use Lilo, because of the
> > hassles each time I need to install Windows anew, and I am a bit
> > uncomfortable with liloconf files - I found a floppy based boot loader
> > called gag that seems to do the trick). I was not able to reboot into
> > Caldera because of this. I guess it is there, on one of the partitions;
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
Kirkyour designations of boot1, boot2etc. Do partitions exist with those namesnot!? Ok, do me a favor. You say Caldera is running, so go into a console in Caldera and type fdisk /dev/hda then do a p command and capture the results and post them. Ok? Alan Kirk McElhearn wrote: > > Thanks to all of you who helped me out be explaining how to handle this. > I got the HD and installed it, so I thought I would send you a report. > > Installing the HD was easy. It came with partitioning software, and I > set it up as follows: > > boot1 > boot2 > boot3 > boot4 > boot5 > swap > backup > data1 > data2 > data3 > data4 > data5 > > I first created these partitions with the drive's software as dos > partitions, then, under Mandrake, used Disk Drake to change them all to > Linux partitions, with the exception of the backup partition - I want to > be able to access this from Windows as well. > > So, with the HD set up, I tried to install a few different distributions. > I left Mandrake on the old HD for the meantime, and tried to install the > following on the new HD: > > Caldera OpenLinux > Corel Linux > Suse > Red Hat 6.2 beta > > Unfortunately, this did not go as planned. Caldera was the only one I > could fully install. It started up, but there was no option during the > install to create a boot disk (I don't want to use Lilo, because of the > hassles each time I need to install Windows anew, and I am a bit > uncomfortable with liloconf files - I found a floppy based boot loader > called gag that seems to do the trick). I was not able to reboot into > Caldera because of this. I guess it is there, on one of the partitions; > I need to see if I can get a boot floppy from the original CD. > > Then I tried Corel Linux. This was an instant failure, since it only > recognized my HD as having two partitions - one of 32 megs (boot1) and > the other having 20 gigs (it is a 20.4 gig HD). > > Next try was Suse. This did not work either, because the Suse installer > would only let me install it on contiguous partitions. This seems to be > quite stupid, actually, and I can't figure out any reason for it, but > that's the way it is. > > I also tried a RedHat 6.2 beta CD I have from a magazine. That didn't go > very far in the install, it would not recognize my CD-Rom drive. It gave > a list of only a few CD-Roms, and I tried them all, but none of them > worked. > > All in all, I am pleased that the HD questions were so easy to solve, but > very disappointed that I had so many problems installing. The proverbial > difficulties in Linux installation are real, except for Caldera, and, of > course, Mandrake. I am trying to get a few other distributions to see > what happens, but, all in all, I am quite surprised that I was unable to > go any further. > > Kirk > >vice versa > Translations - French to English, English to French | Technical Writing > Traductions francais-anglais, anglais-francais | Redaction technique > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.mcelhearn.com > Kirk McElhearn | Chemin de la Lauze | 05600 Guillestre | France
Re: [expert] Follow-up - Multiple Linux systems on one hard disk?
> Caldera was the only one I could fully install. It started up, but > there was no option during the install to create a boot disk ... Hmmm... that sounds suspiciously like a bug. They really didn't give you the option to create a boot floppy? > Then I tried Corel Linux. This was an instant failure, since it only > recognized my HD as having two partitions - one of 32 megs (boot1) and > the other having 20 gigs (it is a 20.4 gig HD). When I helped a friend install (an earlier version of) Corel Linux, it would not let you install to already-created partitions. This looks like a different problem; it's not looking inside your extended partition. Anyhow, I don't think you're missing much. Their KFM hack made it function more like explorer, which is positive. However, they use Debian's package management system, which I, for one, find confusing, and their distribution is lacking a whole buttload of functionality. Worse, I think, than the functionality that comes with Windows. > Next try was Suse. This did not work either, because the Suse installer > would only let me install it on contiguous partitions. This seems to be > quite stupid, actually, and I can't figure out any reason for it, but > that's the way it is. That just sounds wrong. SUSE is, so I've heard, a moderately good distrbution. This isn't positive. > I also tried a RedHat 6.2 beta CD I have from a magazine. That didn't go > very far in the install, it would not recognize my CD-Rom drive. It gave > a list of only a few CD-Roms, and I tried them all, but none of them > worked. Probably, I would think, because it is a beta. You might get the official 6.2 version - it is out now, isn't it? - and try that. -Matt Stegman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
