Re: Dual boot - first time using UEFI
Hans composed on 2022-05-02 12:44 (UTC+0200): ... > When I got it running, I tried to install grub again onto the MBR, which was > successfull. But now appeared a blue screen, with choices: "Wait 10 seconds - > go on - Restart - Do not ask any more" (similar, is from my remembers). ... > Can ssomebody explain, what technically the grub installer did do? At one > point it said "I have dicovered another EFI partition, shall I use it?" (or > similar, it is from my remembers) Grub's job starts differently with GPT and UEFI. The UEFI firmware holds the key to booting, not the MBR. The firmware loads the designated Grub loader, whether that designated and stored in NVRAM, or selected from using the BBS menu, from the ESP, instead of loading MBR code. Installing Grub to MBR should equate to a no-op on a disk used for UEFI booting. The Debian installer may have created a separate ESP rather than using the one that Windows created. It's hard to explain what happened exactly without output from parted -l or fdisk -l or equivalent, both before and after the Debian installation process. Managing which OS controls boot is simpler with UEFI. From Debian boot, it is done with efibootmgr command, but it can be done directly in UEFI setup as well. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
Re: Dual boot - first time using UEFI
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Hans wrote: > Hi folks, > > yesterday I installed debian bullseye besides a windows system. As UEFI could > not switched off, I used gparted to make the windows partition smaller. > > Then used an usb-stick and installed bullseye as usual. > > However, the installer discovered UEFI and respected this, but atthe first > boot, only windows could still be booted. > > But the bios allowed me, to boot into windows again (using the F12 key) , and > I could start the installed debian. > > When I got it running, I tried to install grub again onto the MBR, which was > successfull. But now appeared a blue screen, with choices: "Wait 10 seconds - > go on - Restart - Do not ask any more" (similar, is from my remembers). > > After choosing "Do not ask any more", the next reboot showed me the well > known > grub starting screen. > > Well, everything is working, but the problem is: I have nothing learnt of > this! > > Can ssomebody explain, what technically the grub installer did do? At one > point it said "I have dicovered another EFI partition, shall I use it?" (or > similar, it is from my remembers). > > Thanky for making things clear. > > Best > > Hans > Hello Hans, I think this has also been covered in another thread here. If Windows is the _only_ system on a disk, it hijacks the UEFI booting process slightly :) Most people never notice this because they don't dual boot ever. If you install Debian first, it will install entries into the EFI partition. If you then install Windows, it will set its own EFI entries as first and does not recognise any other operating system. If you have Windows installed first and then install Debian, it _should_ run os-prober and discover that Windows is already there and set it as an entry within grub-efi and Grub's menus. If not, you still end up with Windows first and have to boot using a recovery disk somehow. Rerunning the grub install process at this point does install os-prober and then the system "just works", I think. See also the notes to Richard Owlett about how to dual boot a Debian/ Windows system in the other thread. With every good wish, as ever, Andy Cater > > >
Dual boot - first time using UEFI
Hi folks, yesterday I installed debian bullseye besides a windows system. As UEFI could not switched off, I used gparted to make the windows partition smaller. Then used an usb-stick and installed bullseye as usual. However, the installer discovered UEFI and respected this, but atthe first boot, only windows could still be booted. But the bios allowed me, to boot into windows again (using the F12 key) , and I could start the installed debian. When I got it running, I tried to install grub again onto the MBR, which was successfull. But now appeared a blue screen, with choices: "Wait 10 seconds - go on - Restart - Do not ask any more" (similar, is from my remembers). After choosing "Do not ask any more", the next reboot showed me the well known grub starting screen. Well, everything is working, but the problem is: I have nothing learnt of this! Can ssomebody explain, what technically the grub installer did do? At one point it said "I have dicovered another EFI partition, shall I use it?" (or similar, it is from my remembers). Thanky for making things clear. Best Hans
Re: Broken UEFI Dual boot : Debian 12 + encrypted Debian 11
On Tue 23 Nov 2021 at 16:50:30 (+0100), Yvan Masson wrote: > Le 23/11/2021 à 13:57, Yvan Masson a écrit : > > I have a laptop with two drive, historically installed with an > > encrypted Debian 11 booting in UEFI mode (done with Debian > > Installer). > > > > I just installed Debian 12 without encryption in a small > > partition. Unfortunately, I can not boot Debian 11 anymore, > > grub-efi only shows the Debian 12 install. > > > > Any help to make both install boot would greatly appreciated. > > Being able to boot Debian 11 only would also be great if the dual > > boot is not possible. It sounds like when you installed 12, your encrypted partition for 11 was still locked, and so the os-prober couldn't find it. When in 12, you need to unlock 11 and then update grub so it can include 11 in its menu. > I found first an answer for the second question : the wiki > (https://wiki.debian.org/GrubEFIReinstall) explains exactly how to > recover from such issue. This is what I did and I can now only boot on > my encrypted Debian 11. > > For the first question, I found different solutions on AskUbuntu > (https://askubuntu.com/questions/617045/how-do-i-install-two-independent-ubuntu-installations-on-a-single-hard-drive-wit) > : I chose the method with two EFI partitions, because it seems easier > to me (but this might no be true). If you do this, do not forget to > modify /etc/fstab so that each install uses the proper EFI partition. I've no experience with doing that. I've always set up grub-install to point to the device that contains /boot belonging to the system I want to boot up by default, and then used update-grub to make that /boot/grub/grub.cfg aware of all the systems on the machine (but they all need to be visible so that they get entries added). This latter grub.cfg will boot this same system by default. Cheers, David.
Re: Broken UEFI Dual boot : Debian 12 + encrypted Debian 11
Le 23/11/2021 à 13:57, Yvan Masson a écrit : Hi list, I have a laptop with two drive, historically installed with an encrypted Debian 11 booting in UEFI mode (done with Debian Installer). I just installed Debian 12 without encryption in a small partition. Unfortunately, I can not boot Debian 11 anymore, grub-efi only shows the Debian 12 install. Any help to make both install boot would greatly appreciated. Being able to boot Debian 11 only would also be great if the dual boot is not possible. I found first an answer for the second question : the wiki (https://wiki.debian.org/GrubEFIReinstall) explains exactly how to recover from such issue. This is what I did and I can now only boot on my encrypted Debian 11. For the first question, I found different solutions on AskUbuntu (https://askubuntu.com/questions/617045/how-do-i-install-two-independent-ubuntu-installations-on-a-single-hard-drive-wit) : I chose the method with two EFI partitions, because it seems easier to me (but this might no be true). If you do this, do not forget to modify /etc/fstab so that each install uses the proper EFI partition. Regards, Yvan OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Broken UEFI Dual boot : Debian 12 + encrypted Debian 11
Hi list, I have a laptop with two drive, historically installed with an encrypted Debian 11 booting in UEFI mode (done with Debian Installer). I just installed Debian 12 without encryption in a small partition. Unfortunately, I can not boot Debian 11 anymore, grub-efi only shows the Debian 12 install. Any help to make both install boot would greatly appreciated. Being able to boot Debian 11 only would also be great if the dual boot is not possible. Below is a reworked `lsblk` output: sda |-sda1 -> a data partition |-sda2 -> D12 / `-sda3 -> D12 swap sdb |-sdb1 -> EFI partition |-sdb2 -> D11 /boot `-sdb3 `-luks-73072c13-9ffa-4b03-b82b-91db0c063069 |-crypt-root -> D11 / |-crypt-swap -> D11 swap `-crypt-home -> D11 /home $ sudo tree /boot/efi/ /boot/efi/ └── EFI └── debian ├── BOOTX64.CSV ├── fbx64.efi ├── grub.cfg ├── grubx64.efi ├── mmx64.efi └── shimx64.efi $ sudo efibootmgr BootCurrent: Timeout: 0 seconds BootOrder: ,0001 Boot* debian Boot0001* UEFI: Flash Regards, Yvan OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot -- SOLVED
> does it automatically boot to Debian with Windows listed in your GRUB menu?
Yes, exactly. It works as it should: Upon boot the GRUB menu is presented,
with Debian, its emergency option, and the option of booting into Windows.
Thus, all is right in the world. :-)
That was done by disabling secure boot in the BIOS and running the
"bcedit /set {bootmgr} path \EFI\debian\grubx64.efi"
command as administrator in a Windows shell/command prompt.
--
"With software there are only two possibilities: either the users control the
program or the program controls the users. If the program controls the users,
and the developer controls the program, then the program is an instrument of
unjust power." -- Dr. Richard M. Stallman, founder of the Free Software
movement.
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot -- SOLVED
On 8/28/21 1:07 PM, Intense Red wrote:
The problem was that Win10 would constantly overwrite the MBR and blow away
GRUB which forced the computer to boot straight into Windows.
The solution is to go into Windows, open a command prompt/shell as the
Windows administrator and run:
"bcedit /set {bootmgr} path \EFI\debian\grubx64.efi"
does it automatically boot to Debian with Windows listed in your GRUB menu?
Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot -- SOLVED
The problem was that Win10 would constantly overwrite the MBR and blow away
GRUB which forced the computer to boot straight into Windows.
The solution is to go into Windows, open a command prompt/shell as the
Windows administrator and run:
"bcedit /set {bootmgr} path \EFI\debian\grubx64.efi"
--
"If you continue running Windows, your system may become unstable." -- Quote
from the infamous Blue Screen of Death from Microsoft Windows95.(and they
weren't lying!)
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On Fri 27 Aug 2021 at 21:35:38 (-0500), Intense Red wrote: >On a new HP Laptop pre-installed with Win10 Home edition installed on an > SSD. In the laptop's BIOS Secure Boot was turned off. > >A fresh copy of Debian 11 was installed into the machine's 1TB HD. After > reboot, GRUB comes up normally and Linux works fine. > >But once Windows is chosen from GRUB Windows overwrites the MBR and on > subsequent boots GRUB has been disappeared and the machine boots straight > into > Windows every time. > >Question: How can Windows be lobotomized to stop it from overwriting the > MBR and doing this behavior? >From your talk about "overwriting the MBR", it suggests that you haven't read around the topic of UEFI booting or dual booting. You might want to look through pages like: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/524622/what-is-the-relation-between-uefi-and-grub just to get an idea of the issues involved. Then, when you boot into Windows and linux, you'll be aware of where to look for diagnostic information on the problem. If there are better starting points than those references, I'm sure people will post them here. Lastly, it might help to post how you booted the Debian installer, and what choices you made when installing Grub during the installation. Cheers, David.
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, 6:06 AM Joe wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 11:14:28 +0300 > ellanios82 wrote: > > > On 28/8/21 Intense Red: > > > How can Windows be lobotomized > > > > > >- maybe Install VirtualBox, & ONLY run windows inside Linux > > > > > > The Home version won't be licensed for use in a VM, and may be > engineered not to work at all in one. The Pro version should, but costs > a fair bit > I have Windows 10 PRO running in qemu-kvm under Stable Bullseye (though installed when it was Testing Bullseye). When I discussed my Windows 10 PRO purchase with them, the earlier part of the conversation was, before I had selected PRO over Home and the person on the phone did not bring up anything about Home on Virtual environments. So my suspicion is that it will, at least technically run in a Virtual environment. Good luck! Kenneth Parker >
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On 28/8/21 Intense Red: How can Windows be lobotomized - List been real Quiet : No word from the Amazing Polly . rgds .
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On 28/8/21 1:06 μ.μ., Joe wrote: On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 11:14:28 +0300 ellanios82 wrote: On 28/8/21 Intense Red: How can Windows be lobotomized - maybe Install VirtualBox, & ONLY run windows inside Linux The Home version won't be licensed for use in a VM, and may be engineered not to work at all in one. The Pro version should, but costs a fair bit. We can't expect MS to respect the GPL and the like if we break their licence terms. : i do not use windows for anything : my knowledge is zero : depending on needs of 'Intense Red' , maybe basic needs may be fulfilled, using "Wine libraries" or , even a 20-years-old version of windows on Virtual Box!! cheers .
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 11:14:28 +0300 ellanios82 wrote: > On 28/8/21 Intense Red: > > How can Windows be lobotomized > > > - maybe Install VirtualBox, & ONLY run windows inside Linux > > The Home version won't be licensed for use in a VM, and may be engineered not to work at all in one. The Pro version should, but costs a fair bit. We can't expect MS to respect the GPL and the like if we break their licence terms. -- Joe
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On 28/8/21 Intense Red: How can Windows be lobotomized - maybe Install VirtualBox, & ONLY run windows inside Linux . rgds .
Re: Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:35:38 -0500 Intense Red wrote: >On a new HP Laptop pre-installed with Win10 Home edition installed > on an SSD. In the laptop's BIOS Secure Boot was turned off. > >A fresh copy of Debian 11 was installed into the machine's 1TB HD. > After reboot, GRUB comes up normally and Linux works fine. > >But once Windows is chosen from GRUB Windows overwrites the MBR > and on subsequent boots GRUB has been disappeared and the machine > boots straight into Windows every time. > >Question: How can Windows be lobotomized to stop it from > overwriting the MBR and doing this behavior? > > You can't do anything worth a damn to Windows. What you need to do is to get grub in the right place and have it configure the boot menu for itself to be given first boot. Did you use the Expert installer? I put stretch on a Win10 netbook, at some point the installer said it had found another OS, did I want dual-boot? I didn't actually need Windows, but I said 'yes' to keep the option open, and stretch just did it. No problem. The BIOS was UEFI and didn't have a secure boot disable, but it still just worked. Mind you, when I upgraded to buster, I could no longer boot the machine at all without manual use of the BIOS boot menu, so I consider buster's installer inferior to that of stretch. Haven't tried bullseye yet. And bear in mind that some BIOSes are broken, and do not implement UEFI correctly. Mine fortunately honours NextBoot, or I really would have to eliminate Windows, but frustratingly does not honour DefaultBoot, and always defaults to a state where it looks for Debian but fails to find it. If Debian is NextBoot, it is found with no difficulty, so it's not that the UEFI boot code is in the wrong place or is non-functional. -- Joe
Debian 11 and Win10 dual boot
On a new HP Laptop pre-installed with Win10 Home edition installed on an SSD. In the laptop's BIOS Secure Boot was turned off. A fresh copy of Debian 11 was installed into the machine's 1TB HD. After reboot, GRUB comes up normally and Linux works fine. But once Windows is chosen from GRUB Windows overwrites the MBR and on subsequent boots GRUB has been disappeared and the machine boots straight into Windows every time. Question: How can Windows be lobotomized to stop it from overwriting the MBR and doing this behavior? -- "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- 5 star General and US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953, just a few months after taking office -- a time when the economy was booming and unemployment was 2.7 percent.
Re: Moving dual boot Win10 & Debian 10 system from Legacy to UEFI
"Juan R. de Silva" writes: > There is a difference in suggested by your link approach and my > requirements. I have reasons to avoid re-installation of my existing > Windows 10. The suggested procedure based on fresh install of Windows 10 > from from the media created by Microsoft Media Creation tool instead. No. Where does it say that? As I said, I intend to convert my system using those instructions. To me that does not mean reinstalling stuff. I don't need instructions for that. > For the reasons I mentioned in my second post, I'm not sure any longer it > is worth for me to get engaged in this (unless for the sake of > experiment). As I said I can happily live with Windows 10 until the time > comes to replace my laptop with a new one. I meant to comment but then decided no to bother. Anyways, my view on that is that blind belief in some instances claims about supporting stuff can usually be taken with a very large grain of salt. For example, I have here an oldish Dell Latitude. It's not supported by recent versions of Windows 10 any more but that doesn't mean anything. Current version of Windows 10 still runs fine on it. > BTW, my setup is in no way simpler than yours. My system is multi-boot: > Win10, Debian 10 (my primary OS), Ubuntu, and KDE Neon. I just omitted > not relevant details in my original post. :-) Good to know. My comment was only meant to show optimism in that it's possible to adapt instructions found on the internet to different circumstances.
Re: Moving dual boot Win10 & Debian 10 system from Legacy to UEFI
On Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:17:22 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote: > "Juan R. de Silva" writes: > >> Do you guys think it is actually feasible? Anybody can suggest >> something easier, smarter? It's a lot of work to do... :-( > > Why do you think this would be a problem? I intend to do this on my > desktop system at some point. I thought I'd just get a new SSD and make > that my boot drive and clone the partitions over but after a little > googling it seems the conversion isn't that difficult. > > For example, these instructions cover the conversion of a Ubuntu + > Windows 10 dual boot system: > https://www.rojtberg.net/1032/converting-a-ubuntu-and-windows-dual-boot- installation-to-uefi/ > > My setup is a little more complicated since I have Debian and Arch in > addition to Windows 10 but I don't expect major issues. Definitely > taking an image of my boot SSD first though. There is a difference in suggested by your link approach and my requirements. I have reasons to avoid re-installation of my existing Windows 10. The suggested procedure based on fresh install of Windows 10 from from the media created by Microsoft Media Creation tool instead. Thus I would have to convert the existing Win10 install. This is the part in which I was not sure. Actually now I think that it is feasible and even shouldn't be exceedingly difficult. But it would be a time consuming, should be carefully planned. For the reasons I mentioned in my second post, I'm not sure any longer it is worth for me to get engaged in this (unless for the sake of experiment). As I said I can happily live with Windows 10 until the time comes to replace my laptop with a new one. BTW, my setup is in no way simpler than yours. My system is multi-boot: Win10, Debian 10 (my primary OS), Ubuntu, and KDE Neon. I just omitted not relevant details in my original post. :-)
Re: Moving dual boot Win10 & Debian 10 system from Legacy to UEFI
"Juan R. de Silva" writes: > Do you guys think it is actually feasible? Anybody can suggest something > easier, smarter? It's a lot of work to do... :-( Why do you think this would be a problem? I intend to do this on my desktop system at some point. I thought I'd just get a new SSD and make that my boot drive and clone the partitions over but after a little googling it seems the conversion isn't that difficult. For example, these instructions cover the conversion of a Ubuntu + Windows 10 dual boot system: https://www.rojtberg.net/1032/converting-a-ubuntu-and-windows-dual-boot-installation-to-uefi/ My setup is a little more complicated since I have Debian and Arch in addition to Windows 10 but I don't expect major issues. Definitely taking an image of my boot SSD first though.
Re: Moving dual boot Win10 & Debian 10 system from Legacy to UEFI
On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 17:23:33 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 7/4/21 4:22 PM, Juan R. de Silva wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I dual boot Debian 10 with Windows 10 from MBR in Legacy mode on my 6 >> years old Dell M4800 workstation. The BIOS supports both Legacy and >> UEFI modes. With upcoming Windows 11 I am compelled to switch to UEFI >> mode. > > > > Dell Precision M4800 laptops have 4th generation Intel Core processors > [1] and Windows 11 does not support them [2]. So, even if you succeed > in converting your Windows 10 / Debian 10 dual boot from BIOS/MBR to > UEFI/GPT, you will not be able to run Windows 11 on that computer. > You are right, my processor (i7-4810MQ) is currently in not supported processors list I finally found. I run this tool https://github.com/rcmaehl/WhyNotWin11 on my laptop and it missed to point it out. It reported all requirements were met providing I will enable TMP module and switch to UEFI. My bad, thank you for suggesting. Well, good for me... I no longer have this headache. :-) Considering MS will support Windows 10 up to Oct. 2025 I am doing just fine. I use Windows once a year to prepare my taxes anyway. By that time I'll have to replace my M4800 workstation with something more up to date in any case. With systemd advent it already started showing first signs of wanted to retire. I'm not even sure it will make it for 3-4 years more. Thanks again.
Re: Moving dual boot Win10 & Debian 10 system from Legacy to UEFI
On 7/4/21 4:22 PM, Juan R. de Silva wrote: Hi folks, I dual boot Debian 10 with Windows 10 from MBR in Legacy mode on my 6 years old Dell M4800 workstation. The BIOS supports both Legacy and UEFI modes. With upcoming Windows 11 I am compelled to switch to UEFI mode. Dell Precision M4800 laptops have 4th generation Intel Core processors [1] and Windows 11 does not support them [2]. So, even if you succeed in converting your Windows 10 / Debian 10 dual boot from BIOS/MBR to UEFI/GPT, you will not be able to run Windows 11 on that computer. David [1] https://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/08/business~smb~merchandizing~en/documents~dell_precision_m4800_spec_sheet.pdf [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/minimum/supported/windows-11-supported-intel-processors
Moving dual boot Win10 & Debian 10 system from Legacy to UEFI
Hi folks, I dual boot Debian 10 with Windows 10 from MBR in Legacy mode on my 6 years old Dell M4800 workstation. The BIOS supports both Legacy and UEFI modes. With upcoming Windows 11 I am compelled to switch to UEFI mode. I know how to switch stand alone Windows 10 or stand alone Linux from Legacy to UEFI mode. However I have not found how to do such conversion in case of existing dual boot install. I am not even sure if it is possible at all. I would endure Debian reinstall but unfortunately reinstall of Windows 10 is not an option for me. For now I'm planning to try the following: - Wipe out Debian. - Move Windows to free enough space and create a new GPT partition. - Switch Windows to UEFI mode. - Create new partition of suitable size and restore existing Debian image. - Boot from any Linux Live-CD and install EFI GRUB module to restored Debian. (Another option would be installing EFI module in existing Debian system in advance and to make an image of it.) Reinstall GRUB. Do you guys think it is actually feasible? Anybody can suggest something easier, smarter? It's a lot of work to do... :-( Thanks.
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Charles Curley < charlescur...@charlescurley.com> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:03:20 -0500 > Kenneth Parker wrote: > > > I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running OS X > > 10.11 (El Capitan). > > How old? The current version of Mac OS is Catalina, 10.15.3. This on a > Macbook Air made in mid-2012. ( -> About this Mac) > I have not eyeballed this machine. He told me that it had Mountain Lion on it when he got it and was upgraded to El Capitan. Suffice it to say that it's old enough to have a Spinning Hard Drive and DVD Drive on it. I told him to investigate a Catalina Upgrade. Anyway, consider this "situation" closed, because a Followup Question by me was about what other Hardware he has? He responded that he has an old Dell in a Closet with XP on it. We agreed that we leave alone the Mac, and make the Dell a "pure Debian Laptop". Thank you and best regards, Kenneth Parker
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:35 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Kenneth Parker (2020-02-13 18:03:20) > > I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running OS X > > 10.11 (El Capitan). It currently has a single 300G HFS Plus (Journaled) > > Partition, with lots of free space. > > > > He wants to keep OS X, and use Buster (or Sid, leading to the next Stable > > Release). > > > > He wants to shrink the Mac Partition, create a couple more for this. (I > > explained the need for two, including a Swap Partition to him). > > > > He thinks that Debian should be able to work on the same HFS Plus Disk > > format. Has anyone tried this? > > > > This is all preliminary now, as I am trying to talk him into ext4 for the > > Debian Partition and, if he needs a place to share files, put a small, > > fourth vfat Partition in for that. > > Debian (and Linux in general) supports read-write access to HFS+ > partitions, but it is unreliable. I would expect it to be difficult to > setup and the result would be unreliable (either because you would end > up depending on the unreliable HFS+ write access, or because you would > end up having a too complex to reliably maintain stack of hacks to work > around the unreliable HFS+ write access). > I have read up on this HFS+ file system and concur completely. My friend didn't like my answer (don't use HFS+ for Linux) at all, putting the whole "project" in question. More on another reply. Thanks! Kenneth Parker
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
Jonas Smedegaard composed on 2020-02-13 18:35 (UTC+0100): > Debian (and Linux in general) supports read-write access to HFS+ > partitions, but it is unreliable. I would expect it to be difficult to > setup and the result would be unreliable (either because you would end > up depending on the unreliable HFS+ write access, or because you would > end up having a too complex to reliably maintain stack of hacks to work > around the unreliable HFS+ write access). This is an example of how it goes on my multiboot a2134 iMac running El Capitan: > inxi -S System:Host: i2134 Kernel: 4.12.14-lp151.28.36-default x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Trinity R14.0.7 Distro: openSUSE Leap 15.1 > zypper se -si hfs ... S | Name | Type| Version | Arch | Repository i+ | hfsutils | package | 3.2.6-lp151.3.3 | x86_64 | OSS > grep hfs /etc/fstab /dev/disk/by-id/ata-yada-part2 /macsys hfsplus ro,nofail 0 0 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-yada-part4 /home/macdata hfsplus force,uid=501,gid=100,umask=002,noatime,nofail 0 0 > lsmod | grep hfs hfsplus 118784 3 > df | grep mac /dev/sda2 36997232 14163508 22833724 39% /macsys /dev/sda4 450428928 19288104 431140824 5% /home/macdata > fdisk -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 14.6 GiB, 15623782400 bytes, 30515200 sectors Disk model: USB Flash Drive Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x7cfb8c48 Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type /dev/sdb1 * 48 30515199 30515152 14.6G af HFS / HFS+ > mount | grep sdb1 /dev/sdb1 on /run/media/yada/Lexar type hfsplus (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime,umask=22,uid=0,gid=0,nls=utf8,uhelper=udisks2) > mount -o remount,rw /run/media/root/Lexar > mount | grep sdb1 /dev/sdb1 on /run/media/yada/Lexar type hfsplus (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime,umask=22,uid=0,gid=0,nls=utf8,uhelper=udisks2) > mount -o remount,rw /dev/sdb1 > mount | grep sdb1 /dev/sdb1 on /run/media/yada/Lexar type hfsplus (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime,umask=22,uid=0,gid=0,nls=utf8,uhelper=udisks2) > On another PC here: > inxi -S System:Host: ab250 Kernel: 4.19.0-6-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Trinity R14.0.8 Distro: Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) > lsmod | grep hfs hfs 69632 0 > dpkg-query -l | grep hfs ii hfsutils 3.2.6-14amd64 Tools for reading and writing Macintosh volumes inserting the same USB stick, Konq reports: [quote]Unable to mount this device. Potential reasons include: Improper device and/or user privilege level # happens to root user Corrupt data on storage device # works fine in El Capitan Technical details: org.freedesktop.UDisks2.Error.OptionNotPermitted: Requested filesystem type 'hfsplus' is neither well-known nor in /proc/filesystems nro in /etc/filesystems[/quote] # mount | grep sda # fdisk -l | grep sda1 /dev/sda1 * 48 30515199 30515152 14.6G af HFS / HFS+ # mount -t hfsplus -o rw,force /dev/sda1 /mnt # mount | grep sda /dev/sda1 on /mnt type hfsplus (rw,relatime,umask=22,uid=0,gid=0,nls=utf8) IOW, in Buster at least, hfsplus won't autoload, and even when loaded, TDE won't mount it at all as ordinary user, while root has to remount,rw,force to acquire write permission. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:28:27 -0700 Charles Curley wrote: > I didn't ask for my benefit, I asked for your benefit. I will guess > that you have vetted your hardware on this list. Sorry, that should be, "... I asked for the OP's benefit. I will guess that he will vet his hardware on this list." -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/ pgpcpwhf65Fh7.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:59:07 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running > > > OS X 10.11 (El Capitan). > > > > How old? The current version of Mac OS is Catalina, 10.15.3. This > > on a Macbook Air made in mid-2012. ( -> About this > > Mac) > > More info here: https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Apple I didn't ask for my benefit, I asked for your benefit. I will guess that you have vetted your hardware on this list. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/ pgpXq_UTNG3nm.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
Quoting Charles Curley (2020-02-13 19:56:31) > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:03:20 -0500 > Kenneth Parker wrote: > > > I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running OS > > X 10.11 (El Capitan). > > How old? The current version of Mac OS is Catalina, 10.15.3. This on a > Macbook Air made in mid-2012. ( -> About this Mac) More info here: https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Apple - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:03:20 -0500 Kenneth Parker wrote: > I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running OS X > 10.11 (El Capitan). How old? The current version of Mac OS is Catalina, 10.15.3. This on a Macbook Air made in mid-2012. ( -> About this Mac) -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Re: Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
Quoting Kenneth Parker (2020-02-13 18:03:20) > I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running OS X > 10.11 (El Capitan). It currently has a single 300G HFS Plus (Journaled) > Partition, with lots of free space. > > He wants to keep OS X, and use Buster (or Sid, leading to the next Stable > Release). > > He wants to shrink the Mac Partition, create a couple more for this. (I > explained the need for two, including a Swap Partition to him). > > He thinks that Debian should be able to work on the same HFS Plus Disk > format. Has anyone tried this? > > This is all preliminary now, as I am trying to talk him into ext4 for the > Debian Partition and, if he needs a place to share files, put a small, > fourth vfat Partition in for that. Debian (and Linux in general) supports read-write access to HFS+ partitions, but it is unreliable. I would expect it to be difficult to setup and the result would be unreliable (either because you would end up depending on the unreliable HFS+ write access, or because you would end up having a too complex to reliably maintain stack of hacks to work around the unreliable HFS+ write access). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Mac El Capitan Dual Boot
I am helping a friend install Debian on an older MacBook, running OS X 10.11 (El Capitan). It currently has a single 300G HFS Plus (Journaled) Partition, with lots of free space. He wants to keep OS X, and use Buster (or Sid, leading to the next Stable Release). He wants to shrink the Mac Partition, create a couple more for this. (I explained the need for two, including a Swap Partition to him). He thinks that Debian should be able to work on the same HFS Plus Disk format. Has anyone tried this? This is all preliminary now, as I am trying to talk him into ext4 for the Debian Partition and, if he needs a place to share files, put a small, fourth vfat Partition in for that. Thanks in advance. Kenneth Parker
Re: (solved) Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Hello guys, As I promised, here a more detailed solution, with the steps I really used: The problem: * You have a Windows 10 UEFI and a Linux Legacy boot. They both work, but to choose what to boot you need to change the BIOS option each time. Possible solutions discussed in the thread: 1. Let it be. Don't try to fix what ain't broke. 2. Try to make grub legacy find and boot windows 3. Move Linux boot to UEFI as well. Solution I chose was 3: lets move Linux Legacy to Linux UEFI under these conditions. Step-by-step solution to "MY" case. Be careful as your system might have small differences that would make a huge difference in the end. Special attention to /dev/sdXN partition names and the respective UUID used in FSTAB. First step: with a UEFI setup on BIOS, bring up the Linux Legacy. To do this, you need to boot from a USB stick, as your Linux won't boot. Then you need to give control to the Linux on the harddrive (chroot). The steps are: # boot do debian live of your choice, preferred the same version you have on HD. You will need the internet. Check if apt-get is working on your live system. Maybe install some innocuous/small package like "ascii" Create a point for the new root (in my example it is in sda8): # mkdir /mnt/root # mount -t ext4 /dev/sda8 /mnt/root Now we need to setup the EFI boot # mkdir /mnt/rooot/boot/efi Find your current UEFI partition (maybe fdisk -l will help you), then mount it: # mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/rooot/boot/efi Now prep to change root. Mount all essencial filesystems: # mount --bind /sys /mnt/rooot/sys/ # mount --bind /proc /mnt/rooot/proc/ # mount --bind /dev /mnt/rooot/dev/ # mount --bind /dev/pts /mnt/rooot/dev/pts/ # mount --bind /run /mnt/rooot/run/ Be sure the internet will work after chroot with: # cp /etc/resolv.conf /mnt/root/etc/resolv.conf Find the correct UUID of the UEFI partition. You will need this information to add to fstab file. (Use commands like blkid or fdisk -l -o +UUID or ls /dev/disk/by-uuid) Add it to your FSTAB echo "UUID=A2YOUR14-9UUID22 /boot/efi vfat defaults0 2" >> /mnt/rooot/etc/fstab Now finally, do the magic: chroot /mnt/root You should now "be" on the main Linux on your HD. Test apt-get to be sure with some small/useless package. You really don't want to mess up the following commands! # apt-get install figlet This is the "almost" irreversible part. Until now you were playing with kid's commands. Remove the old legacy grub. Add the new UEFI grub Re-install the grub menu and hopefully it will recognize your windows. # apt-get remove grub-pc # apt-get install grub-efi # grub-install /dev/sda Check if this file exists, to be sure you are on a UEFI partition now: # file /boot/efi/EFI/debian/grubx64.efi Chek also the output of this command and find DEBIAN there: # efibootmgr Go back to your old root # exit Remove your USB-stick and... # reboot Check this website for some other insights: https://blog.getreu.net/projects/legacy-to-uefi-boot/ On my machine I needed also to remove this options in the BIOS: BIOS - removed secure boot That is all. Have a good hacking. My best, Dr. Béco PS. These instructions come WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. Always have your backup ready to reinstall everything. On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 18:15, Beco wrote: > > Hello all, > > Thank you very much for all this thread and discussion. > > Let me get back to you. > > On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 18:26, Pascal Hambourg > wrote: > > > Dear Pascal, > > > >> >> If Windows boots in EFI mode : >> Mount the EFI partition on /boot/efi. >> Install grub-efi-amd64. >> Boot some Linux media in EFI mode. >> Chroot into the Debian system, mount the usual pseudo-filesystems >> (/proc, /dev...) and the EFI partition. >> Run grub-install. >> Run update-grub. >> Done. >> >> >> > > Your simplified solution nailed it! Thank you. > > I mark this thread as solved basically because of this small paragraph. So > if you are reading this in the near future trying to find a solution, this > step-by-step and some duckduckgo will get you into business. > > > There are more details for a complete response, and some commands needs to > be in a different order, that I'll reply later in this thread, just to make > sure the procedure that I made and worked flawlessly, is registered for > posterity. > > For now, if you are in a hurry, this answer above will get you in the > right path. > > My best, > > Beco > > > > -- > Dr Beco > A.I. researcher > > "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure > you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" -- Alan Greenspan > > GPG Key: > https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5A107A425102382A > Creation date: pgp.mit.edu ID as of 2014-11-09 > -- Dr Beco A.I. researcher "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" -- Alan Greenspan GPG Key: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5A107A42510238
(solved) Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Hello all, Thank you very much for all this thread and discussion. Let me get back to you. On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 18:26, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Dear Pascal, > > If Windows boots in EFI mode : > Mount the EFI partition on /boot/efi. > Install grub-efi-amd64. > Boot some Linux media in EFI mode. > Chroot into the Debian system, mount the usual pseudo-filesystems > (/proc, /dev...) and the EFI partition. > Run grub-install. > Run update-grub. > Done. > > > Your simplified solution nailed it! Thank you. I mark this thread as solved basically because of this small paragraph. So if you are reading this in the near future trying to find a solution, this step-by-step and some duckduckgo will get you into business. There are more details for a complete response, and some commands needs to be in a different order, that I'll reply later in this thread, just to make sure the procedure that I made and worked flawlessly, is registered for posterity. For now, if you are in a hurry, this answer above will get you in the right path. My best, Beco -- Dr Beco A.I. researcher "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" -- Alan Greenspan GPG Key: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5A107A425102382A Creation date: pgp.mit.edu ID as of 2014-11-09
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
On 2019-10-08, Joe wrote: > > But I'm pretty sure that any pre-installed Windows, and very few people > now install it themselves, will be a UEFI installation, which cannot be > changed to boot in legacy mode, nor vice-versa. > >From what I'm understanding you're batting a thousand here, Joe. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/mbr-to-gpt https://www.asus.com/us/support/FAQ/1013017/ -- "There are no foreign lands. It is the traveler only who is foreign." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 23:29:09 +0200 Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 07/10/2019 à 09:42, Joe a écrit : > > On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 23:26:32 +0200 > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > >> Le 06/10/2019 à 22:45, Beco a écrit : > >>> > >>> Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one > >>> you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and > >>> vice-versa, then you can boot. > >> > >> Would you mind telling which systems boots in EFI mode and which > >> one boots in legacy mode ? > >> > > Windows 8/8a/10 boot only in EFI. > > I don't think so. Source ? > As I Understood It. Definitely, computers certified for these versions must have EFI mode available, which is not, of course, the same thing. Yes, even Win10 appears to be able to be installed to boot in legacy mode. Shows how many Windows installations I've done recently But I'm pretty sure that any pre-installed Windows, and very few people now install it themselves, will be a UEFI installation, which cannot be changed to boot in legacy mode, nor vice-versa. -- Joe
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Le 07/10/2019 à 09:42, Joe a écrit : On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 23:26:32 +0200 Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 06/10/2019 à 22:45, Beco a écrit : Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and vice-versa, then you can boot. Would you mind telling which systems boots in EFI mode and which one boots in legacy mode ? Windows 8/8a/10 boot only in EFI. I don't think so. Source ?
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:45:37 -0300 Beco wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have this laptop problem to solve: the original windows 10 is kept, > shrunk partition to 1TB, originally cryptographied (but now normal). > The rest was given to Linux, Debian 10: 800GB root and 8.2GB swap. > > Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you > want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and > vice-versa, then you can boot. > > Not a good way to keep. When I needed windows I had once succes with rEFInd boot manager, apt install refind Always have a rescue USB stick at hand though, windows 10 has nasty suprises. Wish you good luck.
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 23:26:32 +0200 Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 06/10/2019 à 22:45, Beco a écrit : > > > > Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one > > you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and > > vice-versa, then you can boot. > > Would you mind telling which systems boots in EFI mode and which one > boots in legacy mode ? > Windows 8/8a/10 boot only in EFI. -- Joe
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Le 06/10/2019 à 22:45, Beco a écrit : Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and vice-versa, then you can boot. Would you mind telling which systems boots in EFI mode and which one boots in legacy mode ? Not a good way to keep. Some people think otherwise. It is not the most convenient, but it prevents Windows to interfere with GRUB's operation. Lets give the devices some names. /dev/sda4 is windows 10 /dev/sda5 is debian buster 10 /dev/sda6 is swap Grub is installed at sda5 with Debian, but when updated it doesn't recognize A Windows partition. Of course not. Both systems must be set up to boot in the same mode. Can you point me to a possible howto, blog, set of instructions or even abstract ideas that are in the right direction? If Windows boots in EFI mode : Mount the EFI partition on /boot/efi. Install grub-efi-amd64. Boot some Linux media in EFI mode. Chroot into the Debian system, mount the usual pseudo-filesystems (/proc, /dev...) and the EFI partition. Run grub-install. Run update-grub. Done. If Windows boots in legacy mode : Create a partition with "BIOS boot" type. 100 ko is more than enough. Install grub-pc. Done.
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:45:37 -0300 Beco wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have this laptop problem to solve: the original windows 10 is kept, > shrunk partition to 1TB, originally cryptographied (but now normal). > The rest was given to Linux, Debian 10: 800GB root and 8.2GB swap. > > Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you > want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and > vice-versa, then you can boot. > > Not a good way to keep. > > Lets give the devices some names. > > /dev/sda4 is windows 10 > /dev/sda5 is debian buster 10 > /dev/sda6 is swap > > Other partitions are the usual that comes with a Windows Dell laptop > (boot, backup, etc.) > > Grub is installed at sda5 with Debian, but when updated it doesn't > recognize A Windows partition. > > Can you point me to a possible howto, blog, set of instructions or > even abstract ideas that are in the right direction? > Installation notes for Debian 10, on the Debian website. I installed stretch (stable at the time) on a Win10 netbook without problems. There is no legacy BIOS in that machine, so Debian had to be installed UEFI and it Just Worked. The grub menu lists the Windows boot manager underneath the Debian entry. There will be a UEFI partition apart from those you named, Windows requires it and Debian can use it. Certainly stretch was UEFI-enabled, so I assume buster is also. -- Joe
Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Hi guys, I have this laptop problem to solve: the original windows 10 is kept, shrunk partition to 1TB, originally cryptographied (but now normal). The rest was given to Linux, Debian 10: 800GB root and 8.2GB swap. Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and vice-versa, then you can boot. Not a good way to keep. Lets give the devices some names. /dev/sda4 is windows 10 /dev/sda5 is debian buster 10 /dev/sda6 is swap Other partitions are the usual that comes with a Windows Dell laptop (boot, backup, etc.) Grub is installed at sda5 with Debian, but when updated it doesn't recognize A Windows partition. Can you point me to a possible howto, blog, set of instructions or even abstract ideas that are in the right direction? My best, -- Dr Beco A.I. researcher "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" -- Alan Greenspan GPG Key: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5A107A425102382A Creation date: pgp.mit.edu ID as of 2014-11-09
Re: Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
Le 11/06/2019 à 21:45, Stephen P. Molnar a écrit : On 06/11/2019 02:20 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: IMO installing GRUB can be desirable for two reasons. 1) Obviously, it allows the drive to boot by itself so that you can move it into another machine, or remove the current boot drive, or change the boot order. The OP uses legacy boot, but be aware that this won't work the same with EFI boot : installing a second instance of a Debian system will overwrite the existing EFI boot entry "debian". 2) It creates a grub.cfg file which provides hints about kernel parameters and so on when running update-grub from another system. Should I, or should I not, install the the Buster grub sub-directory on sdd, the drive on which I intend installing Buster? I thought I was clear enough in my previous post : I recommend to install GRUB with Buster on its own drive for the two reasons exposed above. My understanding has been that I could install Buster, but not boot it at the end of the installation, Why not ? but rather close buster, reboot the computer into Stretch as root and then run update-grub in Stretch. Is this still a safe way to proceed? Neither safe nor unsafe. What matters is whether you install GRUB with Buster or not. My intent is to remove Stretch from the platform once that I'm confident with the performance of Buster, and the inevitable first problems with a new version of the OS have been resolved. But now I wondering about that course of action. When you remove Stretch, you need Buster to have its own boot loader.
Re: Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
On 06/11/2019 02:20 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 11/06/2019 ?? 13:36, songbird a ??crit : what i'm not sure of is if you need to bother with putting the grub bootloader on it so at the end where it asks you perhaps you can skip that step. IMO installing GRUB can be desirable for two reasons. 1) Obviously, it allows the drive to boot by itself so that you can move it into another machine, or remove the current boot drive, or change the boot order. The OP uses legacy boot, but be aware that this won't work the same with EFI boot : installing a second instance of a Debian system will overwrite the existing EFI boot entry "debian". 2) It creates a grub.cfg file which provides hints about kernel parameters and so on when running update-grub from another system. Warning : you should disable os-prober when running update-grub on a non-boot system, otherwise it may happen that update-grub adds duplicate menu entries (sometimes hundreds !). I'm the OP and now I'm concerned and rather confused. Fortunately, I haven't installed the new drive at this point. Should I, or should I not, install the the Buster grub sub-directory on sdd, the drive on which I intend installing Buster? My understanding has been that I could install Buster, but not boot it at the end of the installation, bur rather close buster, reboot the computer into Stretch as root and then run update-grub in Stretch. Is this still a safe way to proceed? My intent is to remove Stretch from the platform once that I'm confident with the performance of Buster, and the inevitable first problems with a new version of the OS have been resolved. But now I wondering about that course of action. Please be advised that I'm a Chemist, not a Computer Engineer. Further comments will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set www.molecular-modeling.netStochastic and multivariate (614)312-7528(c) Skype: smolnar1
Re: Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
Le 11/06/2019 à 13:36, songbird a écrit : what i'm not sure of is if you need to bother with putting the grub bootloader on it so at the end where it asks you perhaps you can skip that step. IMO installing GRUB can be desirable for two reasons. 1) Obviously, it allows the drive to boot by itself so that you can move it into another machine, or remove the current boot drive, or change the boot order. The OP uses legacy boot, but be aware that this won't work the same with EFI boot : installing a second instance of a Debian system will overwrite the existing EFI boot entry "debian". 2) It creates a grub.cfg file which provides hints about kernel parameters and so on when running update-grub from another system. Warning : you should disable os-prober when running update-grub on a non-boot system, otherwise it may happen that update-grub adds duplicate menu entries (sometimes hundreds !).
Re: Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > My Debian platform has four drives: > > NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT > sda 8:0 0 465.8G 0 disk > ??sda1 8:1 0 457.9G 0 part / > ??sda2 8:2 0 1K 0 part > ??sda5 8:5 0 7.9G 0 part [SWAP] > sdb 8:16 0 1.8T 0 disk > ??sdb1 8:17 0 1.8T 0 part /sdb1 > ??sdb2 8:18 0 1K 0 part > ??sdb5 8:21 0 7.9G 0 part > sdc 8:32 0 465.8G 0 disk > ??sdc1 8:33 0 465.8G 0 part /sdc1 > sr0 11:0 1 2K 0 rom > > sda is a 500 GB SSD, currently the boot drive, running Stretch > sdb is a 2 TB mechanical hard drive, used for storage and > sbc is a 500 GD SSD, containg a number of computational chemistry > applications that I use for my research. > > I am planning on adding a 1 TB SSD to the system to be dedicated to > Buster (currently Testing). > > I know that if I select the new drive (for the purpose of this note, > sdd) for Buster during the installation process from the iso DVD, that > Buster will be installed on sdd and grub will show that as the boot > drive. There would also be an entry in grub for Stretch on sda. > > Herein lies the problem, sda is the boot drive, but Buster would not be > a grub entry. Whenever I reboot the system, Buster will be hidden. A > workaround would be to hit the appropriate key during the initial stages > of the boot process to open the Bios and then manually select Buster to > boot. > > Couple of questions: > > Will installing Buster on sdd do anything to make Stretch unbootable? > Is there a way that I can add Buster to the Stretch Grub Boot Screen? > Perhaps grub-customizer? > > I know this is rather convoluted, but it is essential, for non technical > reasons to keep Stretch available while I am using Buster. > > Thanks in advance. read through this whole thing since some of my comments are questionable, but perhaps others will be more sure. :) which do you want to be your default boot (when you start up your machine what do you want to come up if you do nothing at the grub menu (testing or stable)? because of the requirement to keep stable available i would always keep a spare USB stick with stable on it aside from the stable install on that machine. once in a while i update it, but not too often (two or three times a year). the netinst images can also be used as backup boot and rescue tools but i prefer having my favorite editors, web browser and desktop already set up to go if needed (i need bigger fonts to see well enough from the distance i am at from my screen). my own suggestion to avoid complications during an install is to shut down the machine, unplug the devices you won't want to install or be messed with (keep track of where they were plugged in) and then plug in the new device and do your testing install. what i'm not sure of is if you need to bother with putting the grub bootloader on it so at the end where it asks you perhaps you can skip that step. shut down the system and then plug the other devices in and see if the system will then boot back to your stable setup. it should since you've not messed with the boot loader. once you are root you can run os-prober and update-grub in stable and see if it picks up your testing partition. if it does then you might be done, but the default grub menu boot entry might need to be fixed (reboot and see if it is what you want). if it needs to be adjusted you can do that in /etc/defaults/ and edit the file grub and change the entry in there for the default. since i'm not sure if those last steps will work or not (i haven't done a testing install since last spring) and i don't run grub any more. just remember that when you run update-grub you want to do it in stable. i've not liked how grub has behaved at times with chain loading and such so i gave up on it. with my new machine i use UEFI and refind which make sense to me and they do what i'd like. if needed i can boot this machine using the legacy bios and grub but i rarely bother. songbird
Re: Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
On 6/10/19 7:04 AM, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: My Debian platform has four drives: NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 465.8G 0 disk ??sda1 8:1 0 457.9G 0 part / ??sda2 8:2 0 1K 0 part ??sda5 8:5 0 7.9G 0 part [SWAP] sdb 8:16 0 1.8T 0 disk ??sdb1 8:17 0 1.8T 0 part /sdb1 ??sdb2 8:18 0 1K 0 part ??sdb5 8:21 0 7.9G 0 part sdc 8:32 0 465.8G 0 disk ??sdc1 8:33 0 465.8G 0 part /sdc1 sr0 11:0 1 2K 0 rom sda is a 500 GB SSD, currently the boot drive, running Stretch sdb is a 2 TB mechanical hard drive, used for storage and sbc is a 500 GD SSD, containg a number of computational chemistry applications that I use for my research. I am planning on adding a 1 TB SSD to the system to be dedicated to Buster (currently Testing). I know that if I select the new drive (for the purpose of this note, sdd) for Buster during the installation process from the iso DVD, that Buster will be installed on sdd and grub will show that as the boot drive. There would also be an entry in grub for Stretch on sda. Herein lies the problem, sda is the boot drive, but Buster would not be a grub entry. Whenever I reboot the system, Buster will be hidden. A workaround would be to hit the appropriate key during the initial stages of the boot process to open the Bios and then manually select Buster to boot. Couple of questions: Will installing Buster on sdd do anything to make Stretch unbootable? Is there a way that I can add Buster to the Stretch Grub Boot Screen? Perhaps grub-customizer? I know this is rather convoluted, but it is essential, for non technical reasons to keep Stretch available while I am using Buster. Thanks in advance. HDD's, SSD's, USB flash drives, optical drives, etc., fail. I have dealt with more than a few lately. It sounds like you are getting the point where you should consider redundancy. I prefer small (16+ GB), single SSD's or USB flash drives for system disks. Redundancy consists of periodic and on-demand images, daily backups, and keeping configuration file changes in a version control system. I partition my Debian and FreeBSD system drives with 1 GB boot, 1 GB swap, and 10 to 12 GB root: 1. I can use 16+ GB USB flash drives, HDD's, and SSD's for system images. All are readily available and inexpensive. 2. One device is easier to administer than two devices in a mirror, and only requires one bay and one port. 3. I use lowest-common denominator partitioning schemes (MBR) and boot loaders (BIOS), so that any image on any device can boot in any machine. 4. The small size makes it practical to take images on a regular basis, and to retain a few copies for each system. I use large, enterprise HDD's in a mirror for data. (Unused/ old stock enterprise SATA disks are surprisingly affordable.) For your situation, I would forget the 1 TB SSD, get another 2 TB HDD, and rebuild/ migrate into one or two computers: 1. Alternative #1 -- one computer: a. Install Stretch onto a high-quality 16 GB USB 3.0 flash drive. Install virtual machine software. b. Set up the two 500 GB SSD's as a mirror. Build a Stretch VM. Build a Buster VM. Create a directory that is shared into both VM's. Install the chemistry software there. c. Set up the two 2 TB HDD's as a mirror. Create a directory that is shared into both VM's. Install data there. 2. Alternatively #2 -- two computers: a. Workstation with 16 GB USB flash drive, two 500 GB SSD mirror, Stretch VM, Buster VM, and chemistry software, as above. b. File server with Stretch on 16 GB USB flash drive and data on two 2 TB mirror. Share data via Samba. Make sure you have several large HDD's for backups. I have three desktop 3 TB drives in a rotation scheme for backups, archives, and images. Docking bays and drive drawers are especially useful: https://www.startech.com/HDD/Mobile-Racks/Black-Serial-ATA-Drive-Drawer-with-Shock-Absorbers-Professional-Series~DRW115SATBK David
Re: Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
Le 10/06/2019 à 16:04, Stephen P. Molnar a écrit : sda is a 500 GB SSD, currently the boot drive, running Stretch (...) I am planning on adding a 1 TB SSD to the system to be dedicated to Buster (currently Testing). I know that if I select the new drive (for the purpose of this note, sdd) for Buster during the installation process from the iso DVD, that Buster will be installed on sdd and grub will show that as the boot drive. Not necessarily. You can choose to install GRUB on any drive. But I would not recommend to install in any other drive than Buster's. Will installing Buster on sdd do anything to make Stretch unbootable? Yes, if you choose to install GRUB on Stretch's drive (sda). Is there a way that I can add Buster to the Stretch Grub Boot Screen? Of course. Just boot Stretch, make sure os-prober is installed and GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER is not set to "true" in /etc/default/grub, and run update-grub. This method is easy but has the disadvantage that Stretch's GRUB menu is not automatically updated after Buster's kernel changes. Alternatively you can add a custom menu entry in Stretch's GRUB config to chainload Buster's GRUB or load Buster's GRUB config.
Dual Boot Two Debian Versions
My Debian platform has four drives: NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 465.8G 0 disk ??sda1 8:1 0 457.9G 0 part / ??sda2 8:2 0 1K 0 part ??sda5 8:5 0 7.9G 0 part [SWAP] sdb 8:16 0 1.8T 0 disk ??sdb1 8:17 0 1.8T 0 part /sdb1 ??sdb2 8:18 0 1K 0 part ??sdb5 8:21 0 7.9G 0 part sdc 8:32 0 465.8G 0 disk ??sdc1 8:33 0 465.8G 0 part /sdc1 sr0 11:0 1 2K 0 rom sda is a 500 GB SSD, currently the boot drive, running Stretch sdb is a 2 TB mechanical hard drive, used for storage and sbc is a 500 GD SSD, containg a number of computational chemistry applications that I use for my research. I am planning on adding a 1 TB SSD to the system to be dedicated to Buster (currently Testing). I know that if I select the new drive (for the purpose of this note, sdd) for Buster during the installation process from the iso DVD, that Buster will be installed on sdd and grub will show that as the boot drive. There would also be an entry in grub for Stretch on sda. Herein lies the problem, sda is the boot drive, but Buster would not be a grub entry. Whenever I reboot the system, Buster will be hidden. A workaround would be to hit the appropriate key during the initial stages of the boot process to open the Bios and then manually select Buster to boot. Couple of questions: Will installing Buster on sdd do anything to make Stretch unbootable? Is there a way that I can add Buster to the Stretch Grub Boot Screen? Perhaps grub-customizer? I know this is rather convoluted, but it is essential, for non technical reasons to keep Stretch available while I am using Buster. Thanks in advance. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set www.molecular-modeling.net Stochastic and multivariate (614)312-7528(c) Skype: smolnar1
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 07:02 Tom Browder wrote: > > I'm preparing to install Win 10 and Deb 9 on a new ZaReason laptop which has > no installed OS on it. Again, thanks to all who offered help. I have my new Zareason laptop up and running! Basic specs: UltraLap 6440 i7 Processor: i7-8550U 8 GB DDR4-2133 Video Card: Intel UHD 620 (included) M.2 SSD: 120GB M.2 SSD (included) 2.5: empty I added a second SSD: Samsung EVO 860 1 Tb (the case was easy to open, and it was easy to install the SSD). The system comes with a DVD which has some drivers and user manuals. I printed the first 28 pages of the condensed user manual for easy reference. I used an external ASUS USB DVD for the installations. I installed Win 10 first on the 120 Gb SS drive that came with the laptop. I had some trouble deciding which of the hardware-provided drivers were necessary, but finally, after several aborted, trial-and-error attempts, I had success with just installing the LAN driver so the hard-wired internet would work. It then took several hours to get Win 10 fully up-to-date. I let Windows have about 50 Gb and I have about 70 Gb unallocated of the 120 Gb at the moment. I had no luck installing Deb 9, but Deb 10 Buster installed fine (with the MATE desktop) using the rc1 #1 DVD and a hard-wired internet connection. I chose to use guided partitioning with the entire 1 Tb second SSD for Debian. After installation I had to adjust the /etc/apt sources for Buster, and then had to install package firmware-iwlwlan for the WLAN. After a reboot, all my wireless networks were accessible. The characters on the default screen display, 1920x1080, were too tiny for my old eyes, but all looks great after I downsized the display to 1440x820. So far I am happy with the new Zareason laptop. Nate, at their support email address, has been responsive and answered all my questions. The only complaint I have is the lack of an LED to show caps lock, but others had noted that and I knew it before I bought the laptop. The laptop is over two pounds lighter than my old one, and it is a joy to keep near my easy chair to use casually in my lap if I have a moment to do some light hacking while watching TV. Regarding Buster: I've noticed some slight delays while using the touchpad, but I hope that will get a dev's attention before the real release. However, the nice thing is I can turn the touchpad off in the settings if I want to use a mouse. There is a Fn+F1 key combo that is supposed to toggle the touchpad but it doesn't work for me on Debian. Maybe there is a way to get that to work with some config under the Deb hood. Best regards, -Tom
Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?
On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 08:18 +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 12/04/2019 à 22:46, Thomas D Dial a écrit : > > In terms of management, it is a major advance over physical > > partitioning > > for the file systems and, depending on particular file system > > characteristics, allows you to get out of space problems without > > down > > time in many cases (online resizing is available for jfs, xfs, I > > think > > for ext2/3/4, and possibly others). > > XFS and ext* can be grown online. Ext* can be reduced offline only. > XFS > cannot be reduced. Btrfs can be grown and reduced online. I don't t > know > about JFS. I ought to have specified "increase" or "growth" rather than "resizing," never having had occasion to reduce a volume. I also was unaware of the situation with Btrfs. JFS can be grown while mounted and in use, but as far as I know cannot be reduced in size except offline. Regards, Tom Dial
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 08:26 +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 12/04/2019 à 22:25, Thomas D Dial a écrit : > > I let the installer partition the USB key that was the install > > target > > and picked LVM, but specified distinct /, /usr/, /var, /home, and > > swap > > Why did you create a distinct volume for /usr ? A (now) bad habit brought forward from 20+ year old HP-UX admin experience. > > > partitions and left some empty space within the LVM volume group. > > The > > installer offers a number of other options. > > The guided partitioning options do not offer to leave some empty > space > for future use in the volume group, making them mostly useless IMO. This is an excellent point. An LVM volume group without free space isn't a lot better than a full physical disk. I don't use guided partitioning at install because it fills the disk and the volume group and because I don't think I need the several hundred GB /home that I recall it will set up on the large disk or SSDs we have now. Regards, Tom Dial
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Le 12/04/2019 à 22:25, Thomas D Dial a écrit : I let the installer partition the USB key that was the install target and picked LVM, but specified distinct /, /usr/, /var, /home, and swap Why did you create a distinct volume for /usr ? partitions and left some empty space within the LVM volume group. The installer offers a number of other options. The guided partitioning options do not offer to leave some empty space for future use in the volume group, making them mostly useless IMO.
Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?
Le 12/04/2019 à 22:46, Thomas D Dial a écrit : In terms of management, it is a major advance over physical partitioning for the file systems and, depending on particular file system characteristics, allows you to get out of space problems without down time in many cases (online resizing is available for jfs, xfs, I think for ext2/3/4, and possibly others). XFS and ext* can be grown online. Ext* can be reduced offline only. XFS cannot be reduced. Btrfs can be grown and reduced online. I don't t know about JFS.
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On 4/11/19 5:02 AM, Tom Browder wrote: I'm preparing to install Win 10 and Deb 9 on a new ZaReason laptop which has no installed OS on it. It comes with one 120 Gb SSD as its primary drive and has an empty bay where I will install a Samsung evo 860 1 Tb SSD. I would like to use a live image on a large USB for preparing the disks before installing Win 10 and then Deb 9. Some questions: 1. What is the best filesystem (FS) to use on the USB? They usually come with a FAT32 or exFAT FS, but I have in the past made them exFAT. As I understand it, I believe I can just copy the Debian CD live iso image file onto the USB and it will be found and booted from fine. 2. If a straight copy works as in question 1, is there any problem with adding other files on the USB? I have a 64 Gb USB I would like to use for both a live image as well as storing other files on it. Given that I'm starting with two clean drives, my plan is to use the small disk for Win 10 and the other for Debian and maybe have a small partition to experiment with a BSD OS. 3. Any suggestions as to partitioning given the advantages of the new (to me) GPT disk formats? 4. Which partitioning program is best to use? I am used to using fdisk and parted, but I see partion manager mentioned. On 4/11/19 8:01 PM, David Christensen wrote: Which model zareason laptop? Which make, model, form factor, and interface 120 GB SSD? Which form factor and interface Samsung EVO 860 1 TB SSD? How much RAM? Make and model WiFi interface? On 4/12/19 7:09 AM, Tom Browder wrote: Laptop = UltraLap 6440 i7 Options: Linux Version: No operating system Processor: i7-8550U Dual Memory: 8 GB DDR4-2133 Video Card: Intel UHD 620 (included) M.2 SSD: 120GB M.2 SSD (included) 2.5: — WiFi: Intel® Wireless AC Dual-Band (2.4/5ghz) Bluetooth: (included) Battery: 6-cell (included) AC Adapters: 1 (included) Card Reader: SD/MMC (included) Webcam: HD webcam (included) Samsung SSD 860 EVO == V-NAND SSD SATA 6 Gb/s size: 1 Tb production date: 2019-02-23 5 year limited warranty bought from Amazon On 4/12/19 7:50 AM, Tom Browder wrote: I have used ext4 for many years while I have been watching zfs and btrfs being developed. I am now considering using one or both on at least one partion during my upcoming new Debian installation. Can anyone recommend either one for a normal (non-developer, non-hobbyiest) user who does backups and values his data and wants reasonable reliability? On 4/12/19 7:50 AM, Tom Browder wrote: I have used ext4 for many years while I have been watching zfs and btrfs being developed. I am now considering using one or both on at least one partion during my upcoming new Debian installation. Can anyone recommend either one for a normal (non-developer, non-hobbyiest) user who does backups and values his data and wants reasonable reliability? Thank you for the hardware info. Looking at the product page: http://zareason.com/ultralap-6440-i7.html 1. That looks like a nice laptop. :-) 2. It is interesting that the operating system drop-down list is labeled "Linux Version", and that Windows is conspicuously absent. 3. It is also interesting that there is no "Support" link. But, there is a telephone number. I suggest: 1. Replace the 120 GB M.2 SSD with a 1 TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD ($168 on Amazon), so you can do RAID1 (mirror). 2. Plan to install one host OS on the hardware and use a hypervisor/ virtual machines for any and all other OS's. 3. Install Windows 10 (Professional or Enterprise). I don't know if you can load a driver and configure hardware RAID during Windows installation, create a software RAID during Windows installation, or install Windows onto one SSD and set up RAID later. (Understand that each choice has disaster recovery ramifications.) Let the Windows installer allocate all available space on both SSD's. (The SSD's already have over-provisioning built in; you should not need more for a desktop). Be careful not to activate Windows (!). Once Windows is installed, try to get all of the hardware working (e.g. drivers). Test as much of Windows as you can. Then install whatever application software you plan to use and test that. Explore backup, archive, image, and restore scenarios. Type notes into another computer while you work. Take photographs of important screens. 4. Repeat the above process using Debian. Choose manual partitioning in the Debian installer, and explore every option until you figure it out (you can always reboot the laptop if you get stuck). Delete all partitions and partition tables on both drives. Create new partition tables. Create three mirrored partitions on each SSD -- boot, swap, and root. Choose partition sizes so that the three partitions together consume 80~90% of a USB flash drive. (I prefer 16 GB devices and use ~1 GB boot partitions, ~1 GB swap partitions, and ~10 GB root partitions). Encrypt swap and root, if
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
David Wright wrote: > Your figures are virtually meaningless without any sort of breakdown > even into what's system and what's your documents. > yeah yeah ... use your imagination. Sqldeveloper, couple of virtual machines, some installation packages each of which is 1-2GB and so one Software for testing and such to be tested ... oracle DB installer ... all kind of crap. The point is if you want to work with this, you need more space and 120G might be simply not enough. > And mention of cygwin merely clouds the issue: you say you just need a > decent shell, and a minimal installation will give you that. OTOH, a > full implementation is a completely different kettle of fish, and I > hazard that most linux users won't be interested in it at all. you do not know what exactly I installed, but I installed not only minimal shell, but X as well - no need to explain why ... it just adds to what is already there.
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Fri 12 Apr 2019 at 21:42:51 (+0200), deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > We have a laptop that was used with windows for just under four > > years. Main applications are Office for excel/word/powerpoint, > > Outlook for email, Coreldraw for publication figures. Disk usage > > is approximately 90GB, of which the user's own files are 45GB, > > in a partition of 175GB. The partition was originally 423GB, > > but I carved the space for my linux system out of it. > > on the company notebook I am still on windows 7. the disk is 250GB with more > applications than office and many documents, diagrams etc it is now at > ~170GB > > so you see 120 is not that much for windows. > > At home I have a virtual machine with windows7 where I run visio mostly but > have the data on the share. I had to increase disk to 70GB recently after > seriously cleaning up. > > I need to use that crap for money making ... oh and part of this 170GB is > occupied by cygwin cause you need a more or less decent shell if you have > to work with servers. Your figures are virtually meaningless without any sort of breakdown even into what's system and what's your documents. And mention of cygwin merely clouds the issue: you say you just need a decent shell, and a minimal installation will give you that. OTOH, a full implementation is a completely different kettle of fish, and I hazard that most linux users won't be interested in it at all. Cheers, David.
Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?
On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 09:41 -0500, Tom Browder wrote: > I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but > I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions. > > Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering > ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that > route? I would strongly recommend LVM as an option. I have used LVM on Linux - and Debian - for as long as it has been available, and for some years earlier on HP-UX. As far as I know, it is no more likely to have failures than any other disk layout, data recovery after failure is no harder. The only real additional consideration is the need for the recovery machine and software to understand enough about LVM, and any other Linux based system can easily be used for that even if it does not intrinsically use LVM. In terms of management, it is a major advance over physical partitioning for the file systems and, depending on particular file system characteristics, allows you to get out of space problems without down time in many cases (online resizing is available for jfs, xfs, I think for ext2/3/4, and possibly others). My recommendation is to use it unless you choose to use ZFS. Regards, Tom Dial > > Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past > has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had > my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk > failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read > the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface. > > I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM > users. > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > > -Tom
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 20:01 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 4/11/19 5:02 AM, Tom Browder wrote: > > I'm preparing to install Win 10 and Deb 9 on a new ZaReason laptop > > which > > has no installed OS on it. > > > > It comes with one 120 Gb SSD as its primary drive and has an empty > > bay > > where I will install a Samsung evo 860 1 Tb SSD. Detailed instructions for installation media are at https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/ch04s03.html.en#usb-copy-isohybrid They also apply to live-cd/live-dvd .iso media per https://www.debian.org/CD/live/ The process (using the cp command on linux or functionally similar commands on Windows) creates a file system that you do not have reason to know or care about. The last one I used had a small EFI partition (type ef) and 2.4 GB marked empty that actually contained all the data and mount recognizes as an iso9660 file system. Other parts of the Debian Installation Guide are likely to be useful as well. I can offer the following dual boot installation as a suggestive example. This was to a HP Pavilion laptop dating from about 2011 that has a traditional BIOS rather than EFI with the original HP setup and Windows 10 (upgrade from Windows 7). I can't claim the procedure will work on other equipment or EFI, but it seems reasonably likely that it would. In this case, I did not touch the internal disk because the HP factory installation of Windows and various HP utilities used all four available partitions. Instead, I installed Debian (Buster, but Stretch should not be different in any significant way) on a 128 GB USB key, using either the Live image mentioned above or a Netinstall .iso image put on the USB key as described in the installation guide. I let the installer partition the USB key that was the install target and picked LVM, but specified distinct /, /usr/, /var, /home, and swap partitions and left some empty space within the LVM volume group. The installer offers a number of other options. Once partitioning was complete, the installation was like any other Debian install, including grub installation, which automatically found both the USB "disk" and the internal disk with Windows. I left the BIOS boot sequence with the USB device ahead of the internal disk in the boot sequence, resulting in: 1. With the USB key in place, the Grub menu allowed choice of either Debian (default) or Windows from the internal disk; 2. With the USB key removed, Windows booted normally. There were no issues except that I seem to remember having to restore the BIOS boot sequence after a Windows Patch Tuesday. Regards, Tom Dial > > Which model zareason laptop? > > > Which make, model, form factor, and interface 120 GB SSD? > > > Which form factor and interface Samsung EVO 860 1 TB SSD? > > > How much RAM? > > > Make and model WiFi interface? > > > David
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Greg Wooledge wrote: > A lot of people are still using cached knowledge from pre-jessie days. no you know at least one in the context of fdisk. I don't know why but I got the impression it does not understand GPT. Just 2 months ago I had to partition 5TB RAID5 disk and fdisk did not work. Perhaps it was because 5TB is too much and not because it could not handle GPT. thanks
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
David Wright wrote: > We have a laptop that was used with windows for just under four > years. Main applications are Office for excel/word/powerpoint, > Outlook for email, Coreldraw for publication figures. Disk usage > is approximately 90GB, of which the user's own files are 45GB, > in a partition of 175GB. The partition was originally 423GB, > but I carved the space for my linux system out of it. on the company notebook I am still on windows 7. the disk is 250GB with more applications than office and many documents, diagrams etc it is now at ~170GB so you see 120 is not that much for windows. At home I have a virtual machine with windows7 where I run visio mostly but have the data on the share. I had to increase disk to 70GB recently after seriously cleaning up. I need to use that crap for money making ... oh and part of this 170GB is occupied by cygwin cause you need a more or less decent shell if you have to work with servers. regards
Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?
On 12.04.2019 19:41, Tom Browder wrote: > I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but > I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions. > > Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering > ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that > route? > > Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past > has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had > my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk > failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read > the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface. > > I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM users. > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > > -Tom > This post on StackExchange marked as answer [1] is a great source of information about LVM. It was updated a few times by author to correct outdated information. Highly recommended for reading. IMO, LVM is not worth the trouble if you use it for just one disk drive. It will add another layer on top of the usual stack and can greatly complicate the data recovery process on disk drive that has multiple "bad" sectors. When automated process of LVM discovery fails, you end up with disk that has it's data separated in strips, just like is RAID0, but much larger in size. There is still next to none tools available for the purposes of data recovery from LVM. It shares similar problems with "Storage Spaces" and ReFS from Microsoft. [1] https://serverfault.com/questions/279571/lvm-dangers-and-caveats -- With kindest regards, Alexander. ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org ⠈⠳⣄
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Le 12/04/2019 à 16:09, Tom Browder a écrit : M.2 SSD: 120GB M.2 SSD (included) Samsung SSD 860 EVO == V-NAND SSD SATA 6 Gb/s size: 1 Tb my plan is to use the small disk for Win 10 and the other for Debian If the small M.2 SSD has a NVMe or AHCI interface, it may be faster than the big SATA SSD. SATA is limited by the SATA protocol and link speed. AHCI is limited by the SATA protocol and the PCIe link speed. NVMe is limited by the PCIe link speed.
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Fri 12 Apr 2019 at 10:05:58 (+0200), deloptes wrote: > Felix Miata wrote: > > >> No Win10 will not be happy with 120GB - better take 300GB from the large > >> disk for windows and the rest for data linux, windows or both > > > > I limit Win10 system partitions to 48GB, and disable paging. > > You always want to arge - but tell me how many applications or how much work > you did and for what time span - what is the grow rate of your windows 10 > partition when using it on daily bases We have a laptop that was used with windows for just under four years. Main applications are Office for excel/word/powerpoint, Outlook for email, Coreldraw for publication figures. Disk usage is approximately 90GB, of which the user's own files are 45GB, in a partition of 175GB. The partition was originally 423GB, but I carved the space for my linux system out of it. Cheers, David.
New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?
I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions. Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that route? Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface. I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM users. Thanks. Best regards, -Tom
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
deloptes composed on 2019-04-12 10:05 (UTC+0200): > Felix Miata wrote: >>> No Win10 will not be happy with 120GB - better take 300GB from the large >>> disk for windows and the rest for data linux, windows or both >> I limit Win10 system partitions to 48GB, and disable paging. > You always want to arge - but tell me how many applications or how much work > you did and for what time span - what is the grow rate of your windows 10 > partition when using it on daily bases Junk accumulates according to the amount of space available for it to fill. I've never used any version of Windows on a daily basis. It gets used only when necessary. I'm a FOSS user. I drag the System Restore slider all the way to the left, 2GB or so. There's no way for me to answer your "grow rate" question. YMMV. >From https://www.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/windows-10-specifications: "Hard drive space: 16 GB for 32-bit OS 32 GB for 64-bit OS" ## openSUSE 15.0 connected to my TV # df -h (redacted) Size Used Avail Use% Usage 252M 20K 252M 1% WinBoot 9.6G 4.9G 4.3G 54% / 24G 732M 23G 4% WinData 47G 19G 29G 39% WinSys 74G 16G 58G 21% /home -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:01 PM David Christensen wrote: > Which model zareason laptop? > Which make, model, form factor, and interface 120 GB SSD? > Which form factor and interface Samsung EVO 860 1 TB SSD? > How much RAM? > Make and model WiFi interface? David, here are the specs on the laptop from the purchase order (I already have the 1 Tb SSD, specs below): Laptop = UltraLap 6440 i7 Options: Linux Version: No operating system Processor: i7-8550U Dual Memory: 8 GB DDR4-2133 Video Card: Intel UHD 620 (included) M.2 SSD: 120GB M.2 SSD (included) 2.5: — WiFi: Intel® Wireless AC Dual-Band (2.4/5ghz) Bluetooth: (included) Battery: 6-cell (included) AC Adapters: 1 (included) Card Reader: SD/MMC (included) Webcam: HD webcam (included) Samsung SSD 860 EVO == V-NAND SSD SATA 6 Gb/s size: 1 Tb production date: 2019-02-23 5 year limited warranty bought from Amazon Best regards, -Tom
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:07:04AM +0200, deloptes wrote: > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > Why not ? Current versions support GPT. > > Thank you my fault - I have missed something It changed after wheezy. Wheezy's man page says: fdisk does not understand GUID partition tables (GPTs) and it is not designed for large partitions. In these cases, use the more advanced GNU parted(8). Jessie's man page says: fdisk is a dialog-driven program for creation and manipulation of par‐ tition tables. It understands GPT, MBR, Sun, SGI and BSD partition tables. A lot of people are still using cached knowledge from pre-jessie days.
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Why not ? Current versions support GPT. Thank you my fault - I have missed something
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Felix Miata wrote: >> No Win10 will not be happy with 120GB - better take 300GB from the large >> disk for windows and the rest for data linux, windows or both > > I limit Win10 system partitions to 48GB, and disable paging. You always want to arge - but tell me how many applications or how much work you did and for what time span - what is the grow rate of your windows 10 partition when using it on daily bases
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
On 4/11/19 5:02 AM, Tom Browder wrote: I'm preparing to install Win 10 and Deb 9 on a new ZaReason laptop which has no installed OS on it. It comes with one 120 Gb SSD as its primary drive and has an empty bay where I will install a Samsung evo 860 1 Tb SSD. Which model zareason laptop? Which make, model, form factor, and interface 120 GB SSD? Which form factor and interface Samsung EVO 860 1 TB SSD? How much RAM? Make and model WiFi interface? David
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Le 11/04/2019 à 20:47, deloptes a écrit : fdisk is not suitable for GPT Why not ? Current versions support GPT.
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
deloptes composed on 2019-04-11 20:47 (UTC+0200): > Tom Browder wrote: >> Given that I'm starting with two clean drives, my plan is to use the small >> disk for Win 10 and the other for Debian and maybe have a small partition >> to experiment with a BSD OS. > No Win10 will not be happy with 120GB - better take 300GB from the large > disk for windows and the rest for data linux, windows or both I limit Win10 system partitions to 48GB, and disable paging. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Tom Browder wrote: > I'm preparing to install Win 10 and Deb 9 on a new ZaReason laptop which > has no installed OS on it. > > It comes with one 120 Gb SSD as its primary drive and has an empty bay > where I will install a Samsung evo 860 1 Tb SSD. > > I would like to use a live image on a large USB for preparing the disks > before installing Win 10 and then Deb 9. > if you have network access, I would suggest to take the net version as it is minimal and you will get all the latest packages from the network during installation, so consequently you do not need any large usb. > Some questions: > > 1. What is the best filesystem (FS) to use on the USB? They usually come > with a FAT32 or exFAT FS, but I have in the past made them exFAT. As I > understand it, I believe I can just copy the Debian CD live iso image file > onto the USB and it will be found and booted from fine. > you can dd the netinstall to the usb it should work > 2. If a straight copy works as in question 1, is there any problem with > adding other files on the USB? I have a 64 Gb USB I would like to use for > both a live image as well as storing other files on it. > What you are thinking will not work unless you modify the partition table, so that it may see the rest of the disk - when you do dd it will write only the image and the rest of the drive will be not usable I usually mount the usb and do debootstrap installation, or when you finish the installation, you can just copy your installation to the stick and make it bootable. > Given that I'm starting with two clean drives, my plan is to use the small > disk for Win 10 and the other for Debian and maybe have a small partition > to experiment with a BSD OS. > No Win10 will not be happy with 120GB - better take 300GB from the large disk for windows and the rest for data linux, windows or both > 3. Any suggestions as to partitioning given the advantages of the new (to > me) GPT disk formats? > might be better, but remember you have to enable it in bios before booting the netinstall > 4. Which partitioning program is best to use? I am used to using fdisk and > parted, but I see partion manager mentioned. fdisk is not suitable for GPT gdisk - GPT fdisk text-mode partitioning tool parted - disk partition manipulator Basically read the debian documentation and then try to implement. Also previously it was advised to install windows first and debian after, but I do not know how Win10 is behaving in the context of UEFI, as far as I understand it, the order should not matter for GPT regards
Re: New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
Hi, Tom Browder wrote: > As I > understand it, I believe I can just copy the Debian CD live iso image file > onto the USB and it will be found and booted from fine. Not necessarily. The question is: found by what ? The computer's firmware (BIOS or EFI, i assume) will ignore such an ISO 9660 image file in any filesystem. So you would need some bootloader or EFI tool to (kindof) mount the ISO image and to start the Linux kernel with initrd and appropriate options. The Debian ISOs for "i386" and "amd64" are prepared for being copied flatly onto USB sticks. This overwrites the partition table and BIOS boot code by bytes at the start of the ISO which take over those jobs. See https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#write-usb or a bit more elaborate with backup of the stick's old state https://wiki.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=Isohybrid#Copying_onto_USB_stick_by_shell_commands > 2. If a straight copy works as in question 1, is there any problem with > adding other files on the USB? The partition table of the ISO image is intended for booting the ISO, not so much for creating more partitions for other payload. It is possible, though. If you have more USB sticks at hand, use one for the ISO and the others for extra data. Else remove the GPT debris and create a new MBR partition as proposed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00568.html This does not answer the question which filesystem to install in the new partition. Something that can be mounted read-write on GNU/Linux and on MS-Windows, obviously. Just try and be prepared to try again. Have a nice day :) Thomas
New dual boot laptop: Best file system for a USB live image for installation?
I'm preparing to install Win 10 and Deb 9 on a new ZaReason laptop which has no installed OS on it. It comes with one 120 Gb SSD as its primary drive and has an empty bay where I will install a Samsung evo 860 1 Tb SSD. I would like to use a live image on a large USB for preparing the disks before installing Win 10 and then Deb 9. Some questions: 1. What is the best filesystem (FS) to use on the USB? They usually come with a FAT32 or exFAT FS, but I have in the past made them exFAT. As I understand it, I believe I can just copy the Debian CD live iso image file onto the USB and it will be found and booted from fine. 2. If a straight copy works as in question 1, is there any problem with adding other files on the USB? I have a 64 Gb USB I would like to use for both a live image as well as storing other files on it. Given that I'm starting with two clean drives, my plan is to use the small disk for Win 10 and the other for Debian and maybe have a small partition to experiment with a BSD OS. 3. Any suggestions as to partitioning given the advantages of the new (to me) GPT disk formats? 4. Which partitioning program is best to use? I am used to using fdisk and parted, but I see partion manager mentioned. Thanks so much. Best regards, -Tom
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Le 29/12/2017 à 23:46, Dan Norton a écrit : On 12/29/2017 08:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: The details for other detected OSes are provided by os-prober. The entry title for the main OS is derived from the GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR variable in /etc/default/grub. You can tweak it to fit your needs. If lsb-release is installed, changing -i to -d will provide more details such as the Debian version and codename. Very helpful. Actually the name is "lsb_release". lsb-release is the name of the Debian package providing the lsb_release command. I need to study the shell - not sure about that GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR statement. Will definitely change the -i to -d. Why isn't -ds needed? What do you mean ? -s is already present in the line. Note that you can define your own static text instead of the shell command.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/29/2017 08:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 21/12/2017 à 20:07, Dan Norton a écrit : Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: A615A904-0620-459F-BF44-5E53E54FDF24 Device Start End Sectors Size Type /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M BIOS boot (...) Is there a problem here? Yes. /dev/sda1 has the type "BIOS boot" but is actually used as an EFI system partition, according to df and /etc/fstab. So it should have the type "EFI system". Ah. Getting this right is a problem for me, but when the installer does all the partitioning, the right choices seem to be made. Before moving on to multiboot with LVM and GPT, I'd like to change the menu entries to something more consistent. The last install is referred to as "Debian GNU/Linux" but that's ambiguous. Which Debian GNU/Linux? If each entry was in the form "Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" that would really be explicit. Also I want some more time to mull over which to boot. The details for other detected OSes are provided by os-prober. The entry title for the main OS is derived from the GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR variable in /etc/default/grub. You can tweak it to fit your needs. If lsb-release is installed, changing -i to -d will provide more details such as the Debian version and codename. Very helpful. Actually the name is "lsb_release". I need to study the shell - not sure about that GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR statement. Will definitely change the -i to -d. Why isn't -ds needed?
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Le 21/12/2017 à 20:07, Dan Norton a écrit : Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: A615A904-0620-459F-BF44-5E53E54FDF24 Device Start End Sectors Size Type /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M BIOS boot (...) Is there a problem here? Yes. /dev/sda1 has the type "BIOS boot" but is actually used as an EFI system partition, according to df and /etc/fstab. So it should have the type "EFI system". Before moving on to multiboot with LVM and GPT, I'd like to change the menu entries to something more consistent. The last install is referred to as "Debian GNU/Linux" but that's ambiguous. Which Debian GNU/Linux? If each entry was in the form "Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" that would really be explicit. Also I want some more time to mull over which to boot. The details for other detected OSes are provided by os-prober. The entry title for the main OS is derived from the GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR variable in /etc/default/grub. You can tweak it to fit your needs. If lsb-release is installed, changing -i to -d will provide more details such as the Debian version and codename.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/28/2017 04:48 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 24/12/2017 à 05:36, Felix Miata a écrit : Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-23 19:15 (UTC-0500): The menu inside the box is: Debian GNU/Linux Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) The first two boot stretch, so they will eventually have "9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" appended, once the timeout is under control. Based on what I see and what you say, it seems you are modifying the timeout for Stretch (/etc/default/grub on vol2), but actually booting Stretch from Jessie's grub.cfg (/etc/default/grub on vol1), which remains configured to 3 seconds. Based on what I see and what Dan wrote, I'd rather say the other way around : Dan edited /etc/default/grub in Jessie (update-grub showed the system kernel was Jessie's 3.16 and found stretch/9.3 as a foreign system) but the GRUB loading at boot time is the one from stretch (the first entries boot stretch). So the time-out must be changed from stretch. You can check the result of /etc/default/grub parameters in /boot/grub/grub.cfg after running update-grub. You can also check GRUB variables at boot time in GRUB's shell (press "c" to spawn the shell) with the command "set". It will also display value of the "prefix" variable which contains the device and path to the used /boot/grub directory. We have a winner! Thanks Pascal. I checked the GRUB variables for each installation: jessie, stretch, and buster. The prefix was identical for all - a hairy, hard to read, touch-typing exercise of the form: lvmid// Of course, the UUIDs were immediately recognizable ;-) as belonging to volume group "vol2" and logical volume "root" where stretch was installed. I changed the time-out in /etc/default/grub and ran update-grub from stretch and it *changed* . The old /etc/default/grub was like this (excluding comments): GRUB_DEFAULT=0 GRUB_TIMEOUT=5 GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=`lsb_release -i -s 2> /dev/null || echo Debian` GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="" ...so the 3 seconds I was seeing was probably due to a run-off of the 5. Anyway, I changed 5 to 12 arbitrarily and that was effective. Thank you, Pascal.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Le 24/12/2017 à 05:36, Felix Miata a écrit : Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-23 19:15 (UTC-0500): The menu inside the box is: Debian GNU/Linux Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) The first two boot stretch, so they will eventually have "9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" appended, once the timeout is under control. Based on what I see and what you say, it seems you are modifying the timeout for Stretch (/etc/default/grub on vol2), but actually booting Stretch from Jessie's grub.cfg (/etc/default/grub on vol1), which remains configured to 3 seconds. Based on what I see and what Dan wrote, I'd rather say the other way around : Dan edited /etc/default/grub in Jessie (update-grub showed the system kernel was Jessie's 3.16 and found stretch/9.3 as a foreign system) but the GRUB loading at boot time is the one from stretch (the first entries boot stretch). So the time-out must be changed from stretch. You can check the result of /etc/default/grub parameters in /boot/grub/grub.cfg after running update-grub. You can also check GRUB variables at boot time in GRUB's shell (press "c" to spawn the shell) with the command "set". It will also display value of the "prefix" variable which contains the device and path to the used /boot/grub directory.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-27 18:59 (UTC-0500): > Felix Miata wrote: >> Is there more than one directory in /boot/efi/EFI/? If not, it's likely time >> for >> you to explore using /etc/default/grub's GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR= option. I need to >> (only one Debian, but 3 openSUSEs installed), but have been putting it off, >> using Stretch's menu for all. > There is only onedirectory in /boot/efi/EFI/ : > root@BR914:/# ls -la /boot/efi/EFI > total 12 > drwx-- 3 root root 4096 Dec 4 22:11 . > drwx-- 3 root root 4096 Dec 31 1969 .. > drwx-- 2 root root 4096 Dec 4 22:11 debian > How would GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=help the timeout= problem? Indirectly, by having a POST-time (F12 menu) choice which installation's Grub to use. -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-27 18:59 (UTC-0500): > Felix Miata wrote: >> Based on what I see and what you say, it seems you are modifying the timeout >> for >> Stretch (/etc/default/grub on vol2), but actually booting Stretch from >> Jessie's >> grub.cfg (/etc/default/grub on vol1), which remains configured to 3 seconds. > That seems reasonable, but I've tried modifying the timeout after > booting each of the installations. The timeout remains immutable. It's > as if update-grub is not using what is in grub.d for timeout value. But > where does 3s come from? There's nothing to do with timeout in /etc/grub.d/ anyone but packager owner and/or upstream should be touching. If you can't control timeout exclusively via /etc/default/grub and update-grub, then it must be time to ask grub people via https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-grub or report a bug. -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/23/2017 11:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-23 19:15 (UTC-0500): Felix Miata wrote: The menu inside the box is: Debian GNU/Linux Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) The first two boot stretch, so they will eventually have "9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" appended, once the timeout is under control. Based on what I see and what you say, it seems you are modifying the timeout for Stretch (/etc/default/grub on vol2), but actually booting Stretch from Jessie's grub.cfg (/etc/default/grub on vol1), which remains configured to 3 seconds. That seems reasonable, but I've tried modifying the timeout after booting each of the installations. The timeout remains immutable. It's as if update-grub is not using what is in grub.d for timeout value. But where does 3s come from? Is there more than one directory in /boot/efi/EFI/? If not, it's likely time for you to explore using /etc/default/grub's GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR= option. I need to (only one Debian, but 3 openSUSEs installed), but have been putting it off, using Stretch's menu for all. There is only onedirectory in /boot/efi/EFI/ : root@BR914:/# ls -la /boot/efi/EFI total 12 drwx-- 3 root root 4096 Dec 4 22:11 . drwx-- 3 root root 4096 Dec 31 1969 .. drwx-- 2 root root 4096 Dec 4 22:11 debian How would GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=help the timeout= problem? OTOH, to change the wording of menu entries, I can edit grub.d files.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-23 19:15 (UTC-0500): > Felix Miata wrote: > The menu inside the box is: > Debian GNU/Linux > Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux > Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) > Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root) > Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) > Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root) > The first two boot stretch, so they will eventually have "9 (stretch) > (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" appended, once the timeout is under control. > Based on what I see and what you say, it seems you are modifying the timeout for Stretch (/etc/default/grub on vol2), but actually booting Stretch from Jessie's grub.cfg (/etc/default/grub on vol1), which remains configured to 3 seconds. Is there more than one directory in /boot/efi/EFI/? If not, it's likely time for you to explore using /etc/default/grub's GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR= option. I need to (only one Debian, but 3 openSUSEs installed), but have been putting it off, using Stretch's menu for all. -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/23/2017 04:35 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-23 15:12 (UTC-0500):
Felix Miata wrote:
[...]
It's not so easy to figure out when POST is over with UEFI. Here, it seems
efibootmgr -t provides extra delay beyond what the BIOS defines for you to make
a selection from its own boot device selection menu, which requires an F12
keystroke here to see.
The timeout after appearance of Grub's menu is supposed to be controlled by
/etc/default/grub's GRUB_TIMEOUT=, which shows up here in Stretch's grub.cfg
first on line 86, a few lines before "### END /etc/grub.d/00_header ###".
Edited /etc/default/grub to change GRUB_TIMEOUT to 11:
root@BR914:/etc/default# nano grub
Observed "If you change this file, run 'update-grub' afterwards..." :
root@BR914:/etc/default# update-grub
Generating grub configuration file ...
Found background image: /usr/share/images/desktop-base/desktop-grub.png
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64
Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64
Found Debian GNU/Linux (9.3) on /dev/mapper/vol2-root
Found Debian GNU/Linux (buster/sid) on /dev/mapper/vol3-root
done
Looking at /boot/grub/grub.cfg, timeout is mentioned as follows:
if [ "${recordfail}" = 1 ] ; then
set timeout=-1
else
if [ x$feature_timeout_style = xy ] ; then
set timeout_style=menu
set timeout=11
# Fallback normal timeout code in case the timeout_style feature is
# unavailable.
else
set timeout=11
fi
fi
...but there is no effect. The timeout when rebooting is still 3
seconds. I'm no shell expert so I don't know how to interpret the above.
What exactly is on the screen during those 3 seconds?
The menu inside the box is:
Debian GNU/Linux
Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux
Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root)
Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) (on /dev/mapper/vol1-root)
Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root)
Advanced options for Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid (on /dev/mapper/vol3-root)
The first two boot stretch, so they will eventually have "9 (stretch)
(on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" appended, once the timeout is under control.
[...]
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-23 15:12 (UTC-0500):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's not so easy to figure out when POST is over with UEFI. Here, it seems
>> efibootmgr -t provides extra delay beyond what the BIOS defines for you to
>> make
>> a selection from its own boot device selection menu, which requires an F12
>> keystroke here to see.
>> The timeout after appearance of Grub's menu is supposed to be controlled by
>> /etc/default/grub's GRUB_TIMEOUT=, which shows up here in Stretch's grub.cfg
>> first on line 86, a few lines before "### END /etc/grub.d/00_header ###".
> Edited /etc/default/grub to change GRUB_TIMEOUT to 11:
> root@BR914:/etc/default# nano grub
> Observed "If you change this file, run 'update-grub' afterwards..." :
> root@BR914:/etc/default# update-grub
> Generating grub configuration file ...
> Found background image: /usr/share/images/desktop-base/desktop-grub.png
> Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64
> Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64
> Found Debian GNU/Linux (9.3) on /dev/mapper/vol2-root
> Found Debian GNU/Linux (buster/sid) on /dev/mapper/vol3-root
> done
> Looking at /boot/grub/grub.cfg, timeout is mentioned as follows:
> if [ "${recordfail}" = 1 ] ; then
> set timeout=-1
> else
> if [ x$feature_timeout_style = xy ] ; then
> set timeout_style=menu
> set timeout=11
> # Fallback normal timeout code in case the timeout_style feature is
> # unavailable.
> else
> set timeout=11
> fi
> fi
> ...but there is no effect. The timeout when rebooting is still 3
> seconds. I'm no shell expert so I don't know how to interpret the above.
What exactly is on the screen during those 3 seconds?
NAICT, the first "if" is setting the timeout to infinite if there is nothing
found that could be booted. The next "if" is using 11 if some sort of optional
timeout indication feature is enabled. Otherwise, 11 is used as Grub's own
standard (invisible) timeout "indication".
Do you still have only Jessie installed? If so, maybe its grub-efi is broken,
and going ahead and installing Stretch will replace Jessie's with a working one.
Stretch's is working as expected here. Jessie's I've never had occasion to use.
Another thought is that if there is but one valid Grub stanza, the timeout
setting might be ignored.
--
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/21/2017 05:13 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
[...]
It's not so easy to figure out when POST is over with UEFI. Here, it seems
efibootmgr -t provides extra delay beyond what the BIOS defines for you to make
a selection from its own boot device selection menu, which requires an F12
keystroke here to see.
The timeout after appearance of Grub's menu is supposed to be controlled by
/etc/default/grub's GRUB_TIMEOUT=, which shows up here in Stretch's grub.cfg
first on line 86, a few lines before "### END /etc/grub.d/00_header ###".
Edited /etc/default/grub to change GRUB_TIMEOUT to 11:
root@BR914:/etc/default# nano grub
Observed "If you change this file, run 'update-grub' afterwards..." :
root@BR914:/etc/default# update-grub
Generating grub configuration file ...
Found background image: /usr/share/images/desktop-base/desktop-grub.png
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64
Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64
Found Debian GNU/Linux (9.3) on /dev/mapper/vol2-root
Found Debian GNU/Linux (buster/sid) on /dev/mapper/vol3-root
done
Looking at /boot/grub/grub.cfg, timeout is mentioned as follows:
if [ "${recordfail}" = 1 ] ; then
set timeout=-1
else
if [ x$feature_timeout_style = xy ] ; then
set timeout_style=menu
set timeout=11
# Fallback normal timeout code in case the timeout_style feature is
# unavailable.
else
set timeout=11
fi
fi
...but there is no effect. The timeout when rebooting is still 3
seconds. I'm no shell expert so I don't know how to interpret the above.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-21 16:53 (UTC-0500): > Felix Miata wrote: >> Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-21 14:07 (UTC-0500): >>> There are still mysteries I have not solved. For some reason, GRUB has >>> decided that after POST, you only need 3 seconds to choose which >>> installation to boot. GRUB has resisted my efforts to change that >>> timeout value. I've been able to change the boot order in NVRAM, but not >>> the timeout. >> efibootmgr -t ## > Yes, it seems like that should work, but currently: > # efibootmgr > BootCurrent: > Timeout: 11 seconds # ... and the actual timeout is 3 > BootOrder: 0003,0001,,0002,0006,0004,0005 > Boot* debian > Boot0001* USB Floppy/CD > Boot0002* USB Hard Drive > Boot0003* ATAPI CD-ROM Drive > Boot0004* Unknown Device > Boot0005* USB Floppy/CD > Boot0006* Hard Drive > Doing it again (See definition of insanity [1]) > # efibootmgr -t 12 > BootCurrent: > Timeout: 12 seconds > BootOrder: 0003,0001,,0002,0006,0004,0005 > Boot* debian > Boot0001* USB Floppy/CD > Boot0002* USB Hard Drive > Boot0003* ATAPI CD-ROM Drive > Boot0004* Unknown Device > Boot0005* USB Floppy/CD > Boot0006* Hard Drive > Well, that changed it from 3 to 4 (!?). Strange. > [1] "Insanity is doing the same thing over & over again and expecting a > different result." - Einstein It's not so easy to figure out when POST is over with UEFI. Here, it seems efibootmgr -t provides extra delay beyond what the BIOS defines for you to make a selection from its own boot device selection menu, which requires an F12 keystroke here to see. The timeout after appearance of Grub's menu is supposed to be controlled by /etc/default/grub's GRUB_TIMEOUT=, which shows up here in Stretch's grub.cfg first on line 86, a few lines before "### END /etc/grub.d/00_header ###". -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:53:19 -0500 Dan Norton wrote: > [1] "Insanity is doing the same thing over & over again and expecting > a different result." - Einstein > Probably the single most stupid thing he ever said, given that he also said 'God does not play dice', showing that he knew what dice were and what they were used for. He also presumably had never had to fix an intermittent fault... -- Joe
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/21/2017 02:54 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-21 14:07 (UTC-0500): 2. You will make extra work for yourself by having a common swap partition for all installations. With the common swap, each new installation gave rise to these messages: a. "gave up waiting for suspend/resume device" b. "a start job is running for dev-disk-by\..." c. "failed to connect to lvmetad" STW can reveal ways to avoid these messages, but they are a PITA and avoidable by each volume group having its own swap. Except with a first Linux installation, I tell the partitioner not to use swap, then add it by LABEL to fstab after installing. The problem is that the installer insists that the swap partition needs to be formatted, destroying the validity of swap's UUID in the fstabs of the previous installations. There are still mysteries I have not solved. For some reason, GRUB has decided that after POST, you only need 3 seconds to choose which installation to boot. GRUB has resisted my efforts to change that timeout value. I've been able to change the boot order in NVRAM, but not the timeout. efibootmgr -t ## Yes, it seems like that should work, but currently: # efibootmgr BootCurrent: Timeout: 11 seconds # ... and the actual timeout is 3 BootOrder: 0003,0001,,0002,0006,0004,0005 Boot* debian Boot0001* USB Floppy/CD Boot0002* USB Hard Drive Boot0003* ATAPI CD-ROM Drive Boot0004* Unknown Device Boot0005* USB Floppy/CD Boot0006* Hard Drive Doing it again (See definition of insanity [1]) # efibootmgr -t 12 BootCurrent: Timeout: 12 seconds BootOrder: 0003,0001,,0002,0006,0004,0005 Boot* debian Boot0001* USB Floppy/CD Boot0002* USB Hard Drive Boot0003* ATAPI CD-ROM Drive Boot0004* Unknown Device Boot0005* USB Floppy/CD Boot0006* Hard Drive Well, that changed it from 3 to 4 (!?). Strange. [1] "Insanity is doing the same thing over & over again and expecting a different result." - Einstein
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Dan Norton composed on 2017-12-21 14:07 (UTC-0500): > 2. You will make extra work for yourself by having a common swap > partition for all installations. With the common swap, each new > installation gave rise to these messages: > a. "gave up waiting for suspend/resume device" > b. "a start job is running for dev-disk-by\..." > c. "failed to connect to lvmetad" > STW can reveal ways to avoid these messages, but they are a PITA and > avoidable by each volume group having its own swap. Except with a first Linux installation, I tell the partitioner not to use swap, then add it by LABEL to fstab after installing. The problem is that the installer insists that the swap partition needs to be formatted, destroying the validity of swap's UUID in the fstabs of the previous installations. > There are still mysteries I have not solved. For some reason, GRUB has > decided that after POST, you only need 3 seconds to choose which > installation to boot. GRUB has resisted my efforts to change that > timeout value. I've been able to change the boot order in NVRAM, but not > the timeout. efibootmgr -t ## -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/21/2017 04:36 AM, Felix Miata wrote: Felix Miata composed on 2017-11-29 13:55 (UTC-0500): Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-28 22:15 (UTC-0500): dan@debian8:~$ sudo fdisk /dev/sda Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: A615A904-0620-459F-BF44-5E53E54FDF24 Device Start End Sectors Size Type /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M BIOS boot /dev/sda2 411648 16783359 16371712 7.8G Linux swap /dev/sda3 16783360 151001087 134217728 64G Linux LVM /dev/sda4 151001088 285218815 134217728 64G Linux LVM /dev/sda5 285218816 419436543 134217728 64G Linux LVM /dev/sda6 419436544 553654271 134217728 64G Linux LVM /dev/sda7 553654272 1953525134 1399870863 667.5G Linux filesystem Is there a problem here? Maybe. I don't have any GPT-partitioned disks... No longer the case. I bought a G250 Kaby Lake Intel motherboard. I currently have Stretch, openSUSE Tumbleweed and openSUSE 15.0 Alpha installed. openSUSE 42.3's installer hangs in the bootloader configuration step. https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1073201 http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/Dfsee/gb250L02.txt is my partition log. The upper part is generated by the partitioner I use. The bottom is gpart -l output for comparison. I haven't seen you post the debian-user list in a while. How's multiboot going for you? Not bad, actually. I'm nearly ready to try multiboot with GPT again on my (elderly) HP desktop machine. It only has a 1T sda, but that seems like wretched excess. Currently jessie, stretch, and buster are installed with primary/logical partitioning. Each is in a separate volume group, with logical volumes for /, /var, /tmp, /home, and swap. IMHO, the following guidelines are helpful: 1. Do all partitioning with the installer. Don't try to prepare the EFI for example with other partitioners. Partitioning can be daunting, but if you patiently and sometimes repeatedly use the installer UI, you can set up the desired partitioning. The installer UI could be improved. :-) 2. You will make extra work for yourself by having a common swap partition for all installations. With the common swap, each new installation gave rise to these messages: a. "gave up waiting for suspend/resume device" b. "a start job is running for dev-disk-by\..." c. "failed to connect to lvmetad" STW can reveal ways to avoid these messages, but they are a PITA and avoidable by each volume group having its own swap. There are still mysteries I have not solved. For some reason, GRUB has decided that after POST, you only need 3 seconds to choose which installation to boot. GRUB has resisted my efforts to change that timeout value. I've been able to change the boot order in NVRAM, but not the timeout. Before moving on to multiboot with LVM and GPT, I'd like to change the menu entries to something more consistent. The last install is referred to as "Debian GNU/Linux" but that's ambiguous. Which Debian GNU/Linux? If each entry was in the form "Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" that would really be explicit. Also I want some more time to mull over which to boot. - Dan
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Felix Miata composed on 2017-11-29 13:55 (UTC-0500): > Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-28 22:15 (UTC-0500): >> dan@debian8:~$ sudo fdisk /dev/sda >> Command (m for help): p >> Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors >> Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes >> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes >> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes >> Disklabel type: gpt >> Disk identifier: A615A904-0620-459F-BF44-5E53E54FDF24 >> Device Start End Sectors Size Type >> /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M BIOS boot >> /dev/sda2 411648 16783359 16371712 7.8G Linux swap >> /dev/sda3 16783360 151001087 134217728 64G Linux LVM >> /dev/sda4 151001088 285218815 134217728 64G Linux LVM >> /dev/sda5 285218816 419436543 134217728 64G Linux LVM >> /dev/sda6 419436544 553654271 134217728 64G Linux LVM >> /dev/sda7 553654272 1953525134 1399870863 667.5G Linux filesystem >> Is there a problem here? > Maybe. I don't have any GPT-partitioned disks... No longer the case. I bought a G250 Kaby Lake Intel motherboard. I currently have Stretch, openSUSE Tumbleweed and openSUSE 15.0 Alpha installed. openSUSE 42.3's installer hangs in the bootloader configuration step. https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1073201 http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/Dfsee/gb250L02.txt is my partition log. The upper part is generated by the partitioner I use. The bottom is gpart -l output for comparison. I haven't seen you post the debian-user list in a while. How's multiboot going for you? -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 11/29/2017 04:29 PM, Dan Norton wrote: On 11/29/2017 03:57 PM, Joe wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:37:46 -0500 Dan Norton wrote: On 11/29/2017 01:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500): After POST, the following appears: [...] PXE-E53: No boot filename received PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM. ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: there is no active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of the device that you expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition leaves the MBR untouched, so it might not yet contain anything other than partition data. The partitioner I use installs MBR code automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to have this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install manually. 'man install-mbr'. Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot? Mounting happens well after the point you have reached. Nothing found for "man install-mbr" but web search yields "How to Install Grub Onto Your MBR [1] which I will try. [1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm You've said that you can boot your system with the aid of a boot utility disc: that bypasses a lot of trouble, and you should be able to go directly to step 8 from within your working system. It's harder to do if you have to work from a different environment. Good. Actually, I started the procedure on my booted jessie system but stopped and booted the live cd when I re-read [1]. As I said, I believe you should also do update-grub, which will certainly do no harm. You don't yet know that grub is configured with the necessary information for an unaided boot. I ran update-grub recently but will be glad to do it again. dan@debian8:~$ sudo update-grub [sudo] password for dan: Generating grub configuration file ... Found background image: /usr/share/images/desktop-base/desktop-grub.png Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 done
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:06:53 -0500 Dan Norton wrote: > > > > [1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm > > Well that won't fly. Booted Debian-Live 8.8.0 amd64 Standard and > reached Step 8 in section 1.1 of [1] which called for "grub-install > --root-directory=/x $drive" but grub-install is not found. > /usr/sbin/grub-install is part of grub2-common, which is of optional priority, but really ought to be part of a live CD distribution. -- Joe
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 11/29/2017 03:57 PM, Joe wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:37:46 -0500 Dan Norton wrote: On 11/29/2017 01:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500): After POST, the following appears: [...] PXE-E53: No boot filename received PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM. ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: there is no active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of the device that you expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition leaves the MBR untouched, so it might not yet contain anything other than partition data. The partitioner I use installs MBR code automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to have this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install manually. 'man install-mbr'. Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot? Mounting happens well after the point you have reached. Nothing found for "man install-mbr" but web search yields "How to Install Grub Onto Your MBR [1] which I will try. [1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm You've said that you can boot your system with the aid of a boot utility disc: that bypasses a lot of trouble, and you should be able to go directly to step 8 from within your working system. It's harder to do if you have to work from a different environment. Good. Actually, I started the procedure on my booted jessie system but stopped and booted the live cd when I re-read [1]. As I said, I believe you should also do update-grub, which will certainly do no harm. You don't yet know that grub is configured with the necessary information for an unaided boot. I ran update-grub recently but will be glad to do it again. Note that grub2 is still a work in progress, and many of the boot problem tutorials you find on the Net are no longer completely accurate. This one should be OK, I think. It's usually worth adding 'debian' to your search keywords, if you turn up something on the debian.org site there's a good chance it's up to date.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 11/29/2017 03:37 PM, Dan Norton wrote: On 11/29/2017 01:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500): After POST, the following appears: [...] PXE-E53: No boot filename received PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM. ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: there is no active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of the device that you expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition leaves the MBR untouched, so it might not yet contain anything other than partition data. The partitioner I use installs MBR code automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to have this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install manually. 'man install-mbr'. Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot? Mounting happens well after the point you have reached. Nothing found for "man install-mbr" but web search yields "How to Install Grub Onto Your MBR [1] which I will try. [1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm Well that won't fly. Booted Debian-Live 8.8.0 amd64 Standard and reached Step 8 in section 1.1 of [1] which called for "grub-install --root-directory=/x $drive" but grub-install is not found.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:37:46 -0500 Dan Norton wrote: > On 11/29/2017 01:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: > > Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500): > >> After POST, the following appears: > >> [...] > >> PXE-E53: No boot filename received > >> PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM. > >> ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. > > It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: > > there is no active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of > > the device that you expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition > > leaves the MBR untouched, so it might not yet contain anything > > other than partition data. The partitioner I use installs MBR code > > automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to have > > this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install > > manually. 'man install-mbr'. > >> Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot? > > Mounting happens well after the point you have reached. > > > > Nothing found for "man install-mbr" but web search yields "How to > Install Grub Onto Your MBR [1] which I will try. > > [1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm > You've said that you can boot your system with the aid of a boot utility disc: that bypasses a lot of trouble, and you should be able to go directly to step 8 from within your working system. It's harder to do if you have to work from a different environment. As I said, I believe you should also do update-grub, which will certainly do no harm. You don't yet know that grub is configured with the necessary information for an unaided boot. Note that grub2 is still a work in progress, and many of the boot problem tutorials you find on the Net are no longer completely accurate. This one should be OK, I think. It's usually worth adding 'debian' to your search keywords, if you turn up something on the debian.org site there's a good chance it's up to date. -- Joe
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 11/29/2017 01:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500): After POST, the following appears: [...] PXE-E53: No boot filename received PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM. ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: there is no active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of the device that you expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition leaves the MBR untouched, so it might not yet contain anything other than partition data. The partitioner I use installs MBR code automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to have this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install manually. 'man install-mbr'. Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot? Mounting happens well after the point you have reached. Nothing found for "man install-mbr" but web search yields "How to Install Grub Onto Your MBR [1] which I will try. [1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm
