Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
Sir if you could be pf ehlp to me, I found this thread through a Web_Crawler and Lycos search(es), and I was wondering if it is possible to do this tih Windows 2000, and if you don't have the time to explain how, could you point me to another resource? I already have multiple partitions on my computer, but don't know which files/folders (if any) I can move form the Windows 2000 partition to another one without crashing the system. Edward Tisdale www.edwardtisdale.com [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] Re: OK to install across 2 HDs? * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: Re: OK to install across 2 HDs? * From: Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:04:31 -0500 (EST) * Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org * In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 4 Jan 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd like to install Debian Linux into various partitions on 2 harddisks. > hdb holds 400 MB, and hdc around 1.1 GB. You bet. If possible, stick to hda and hdc. I saw a 10 to 1 performance improvement in Win95 ScanDisk when I moved my second 1.2G Western Digital to secondary master from primary slave (primary master is an identical 1.2 WD). But yes, NOTHING wrong with splitting across two drives. Try to split them intelligently for best performance. Here's some of my thoughts on partitioning: when you are reading data, you want it now. /home and /usr should not be on the same disk (launching emacs on a file will be reading both the executable and the file). /var probably should be on a different disk than /usr (same as /home?) because daemons want to write to their log file as they are starting up, etc. Here's a df on my server: Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/hda1 19485 10253 8226 55% / /dev/hda2 223494 14678165172 69% /usr /dev/hdc3 198123 11279 176613 6% /var /dev/hdc4 288354 542 272919 0% /tmp /dev/hda3 5600605788 525343 1% /nfs /dev/hdb12990073 2038838 796610 72% /server /dev/hdc2 is a 120M swap. /nfs holds /home and /var/spool/mail, you'll see why in a minute. Here's a df on my workstation: Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/hda3 39039785529168 21% / /dev/hda4 577609 307494 240279 56% /usr /dev/hdc3 99539764686753 8% /var /dev/hdc4 201043 37 190624 0% /tmp templinux:/nfs5600605789 525342 1% /nfs hda1 is 200M FAT (Win95 OS). hda2 is 400M NTFS (WinNTW 4.0). hdc1 is 800M FAT (Common 95/NT apps). hdc2 is 120M swap. On both machines, /home is a symlink to /nfs/home, and /var/spool/mail is a symlink to /nfs/spool/mail, allowing easy NFS mounting of user files with only one NFS mount (and one partition!). > Finally, as far as I know, / doesn't have to be a primary partition. But are > there any advantages to designating it as primary? I try to make every partition a primary, if possible (keep in mind that Linux can have four primaries, unlike DOS). I've seen a few (albeit older and non-Debian) Linux fdisk's choke on the whole extended/logical deal. --Pete ___ Peter J. Templin, Jr. Client Services Analyst Computer & Communication Services tel: (717) 524-1590 Bucknell University [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply to: * debian-user@lists.debian.org * Pete Templin (on-list) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Mark Blunier wrote: > I would use hda and hdb. I don't have an eide controller so I don't have > an hdc or hdd. Some might prefer to use hda and hdc, since both > drives could be masters, but if you have an ide cdrom, I would use > hda, and hdb, as I believe the cdrom can slow down the other side, > ie cdrom on hdd slows down hdc. I've got two WD1.2s in my workstation (Win95/WinNT/DebianLinux). I had the two drives on primary master/slave, with CD as secondary slave. I noticed INCREDIBLE slowness in 95's ScanDisk when doing a thorough scan, so I fired up System Monitor and watched filesystem reads, bytes/sec. My primary master was showing 1.5MBytes/sec read performance, while my primary slave was showing 150KBytes/sec read performance. I (carefully) slid the second drive back to secondary master and moved the CD-ROM to secondary slave, and now both drives show nearly identical (i.e. 1.5MB) performance in ScanDisk. While we're on the subject of identical hard drives, can anyone tell me how to get both of my WD1.2s to show up with the same CHS? I can't seem to squeeze in a bootable (C<1024) partition after the 800M in the beginning. Thanks, --Pete ___ Peter J. Templin, Jr. Client Services Analyst Computer & Communication Services tel: (717) 524-1590 Bucknell University [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
> I am writing my questions in between the text, if anyone can > answer them I would appreciate it. > > Why are you not using hda and hdb? what determines which one > you use? I would use hda and hdb. I don't have an eide controller so I don't have an hdc or hdd. Some might prefer to use hda and hdc, since both drives could be masters, but if you have an ide cdrom, I would use hda, and hdb, as I believe the cdrom can slow down the other side, ie cdrom on hdd slows down hdc. > > I have two HD's. Right now only one is hooked up -- it is my > hda, a 1.6G Western Digital, running Redhat. I wish to hook up > in addition a 340 Meg Connor. I would like that to be the > slave so that I can keep my WD stuff where it is. I want to > install Debian on the 340 Meg drive until I convince myself if > I want Debian on the 1.6G drive. I would like to boot up on > either one. How do I arrange that? Install Debian, then you need to let lilo know were both versions are. You can do this two ways, 1, modify the etc/lilo.conf on the debian version (while running Debian), and run lilo, or 2, modify the etc/lilo.conf on Redhat, while running Redhat. The tricky part is that the partition that has the zImage (or vmlinuz) on it must be mounted (this isn't needed for dos, it is handled a little differently). I would make sure I had a boot disk for Redhat before I started. At least this is how I did it when I converted from Slackware to Debian. The lilo.conf may look something like this. When running Redhat, but the debian partition is mounted on /mnt. boot=/dev/hda root=/dev/hda1 compact map=/boot/map vga=normal delay=20 #Redhat image=/zImage label=Redhat read-only #Debian image=/mnt/zImage root=/dev/hdb1 label=Debian read-only The second one would be > hdb, would it not? . Each drive will be partitioned by using > linux fdisk, and each drive has a small DOS partition on hda1 > and hdb1. I do not wish to use both disks for one distribution > just yet (I understand the merit of doing that, however). I > want to get Debian running on my "test" 340 meg drive, without > disturbing my "running system". Can I get lilo to boot from > either drive? How? I am not sure what you mean. Bios reads the MBR, which will have lilo installed in it. lilo then goes on from there. You can configure lilo from either program, and but lilo on either MBR, but BIOS reads from hda. > > > > You bet. If possible, stick to hda and hdc. I saw a 10 to 1 performance > > improvement in Win95 ScanDisk when I moved my second 1.2G Western Digital > > to secondary master from primary slave (primary master is an identical 1.2 > > WD). > > I don't understand this statement. What exactly is the relation > between hda, hdb, and hdc? Do you have one controller > that runs two HD's? What is your hardware configuration? He probably has an EIDE controller. It's kind of like having to pairs of IDE controllers. hda (master) hdb slave drive. hdc (master) hdd slave drive. This configuration information is in the lilo documents, but it won't jump out at you, so read it slowly, and multiple times. Mark W. Blunier -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Joseph L. Hartmann, Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Pete Templin wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jan 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'd like to install Debian Linux into various partitions on 2 harddisks. > > > hdb holds 400 MB, and hdc around 1.1 GB. > > I have two HD's. Right now only one is hooked up -- it is my > hda, a 1.6G Western Digital, running Redhat. I wish to hook up > in addition a 340 Meg Connor. I would like that to be the > slave so that I can keep my WD stuff where it is. I want to > install Debian on the 340 Meg drive until I convince myself if > I want Debian on the 1.6G drive. I would like to boot up on > either one. How do I arrange that? The second one would be > hdb, would it not? . Each drive will be partitioned by using > linux fdisk, and each drive has a small DOS partition on hda1 > and hdb1. I do not wish to use both disks for one distribution > just yet (I understand the merit of doing that, however). I > want to get Debian running on my "test" 340 meg drive, without > disturbing my "running system". Can I get lilo to boot from > either drive? How? I'd suggest following the Debian default of placing LILO/MBR on hdb, boot from your floppy, then build another lilo.conf to put on hda. See the howto's on LILO for more info (I'm not doing this sort of fancy stuff with LILO). > > You bet. If possible, stick to hda and hdc. > I don't understand this statement. What exactly is the relation > between hda, hdb, and hdc? Do you have one controller > that runs two HD's? What is your hardware configuration? P133/32M, one flop + one floppy port tape drive, 2S, 1PP. This (as well as many other Pentium mb's) has two IDE ports, each capable of handling two drives. hda primary IDE port, master hdb primary IDE port, slave hdc secondary IDE port, master hdd secondary IDE port, slave Slave drives use controller circuitry embedded in the master drive on an Integrated Drive and Electronics drive. Also, IDE can only do one thing at a time. If you can make both hard drives masters (primary and secondary), you'll get better performance. > These are good ideas. I like this, and when I get past my > "experimental" phase I will do this also. Thank you. Be careful that you don't get too many partitions. I strongly suggest that you at least separate /home from /, so if you have to reinstall you haven't lost your files. After that, the next goal is to get / small. The smaller / is (more a case of less files than actual size of partition) the less disk writing that will go on, and less chance of corruption that way. Shouldn't have (I know I break my own rules here) more than one or at most two active partitions on a disk. If both are in use, the disk arm is going to have to go back and forth a lot. Unfortunately, I don't want to lump everything on one partition, and there's a limit to how many small-size (250-300), good-performing, IDE drives (I know those last two things are an oxymoron, but...) you can buy and cram in a system. As always, refer to http://www.pathname.com/fhs for a real good discussion of what files go where in Linux. > > > Finally, as far as I know, / doesn't have to be a primary partition. > But are there any advantages to designating it as primary? IMHO, a little less risk that the partition won't ever disappear. No real evidence to back it up, though. --Pete ___ Peter J. Templin, Jr. Client Services Analyst Computer & Communication Services tel: (717) 524-1590 Bucknell University [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
> "Joseph" == Joseph L Hartmann, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joseph> I have two HD's. Right now only one is hooked up -- it is Joseph> my hda, a 1.6G Western Digital, running Redhat. I wish to Joseph> hook up in addition a 340 Meg Connor. I would like that Joseph> to be the slave so that I can keep my WD stuff where it Joseph> is. I want to install Debian on the 340 Meg drive until I Joseph> convince myself if I want Debian on the 1.6G drive. I was in a very similar situation once. I had a machine with two disks and a CD-ROM, a functional Red Hat on one disk, and a trial Debian on the other. Joseph> would like to boot up on either one. How do I arrange Joseph> that? The second one would be hdb, would it not? That depends on how your hardware is configured. Most modern motherboards have two IDE ports -- called "primary" and "secondary". Each port can handle two drives, a "master" and a "slave". On all the boards I've worked with (a total of three :-), Linux sees the primary master drive as /dev/hda, the primary slave drive as /dev/hdb, the secondary master as /dev/hdc and the secondary slave as /dev/hdd. Thus, if you have hda, and hdb, both drives are connected using one cable to the primary IDE port on the motherboard (or controller card). If you want to boost performance, you can try moving the slave drive to the secondary port. Make sure you know how to set the jumpers on the drives to let them know that they'll be alone on their respective ports, though! Joseph> disturbing my "running system". Can I get lilo to boot Joseph> from either drive? How? Put a kernel image somewhere on both of them and the put clauses in your /etc/lilo.conf file for the two different drives. Something like this: image = /vmlinuz-2.0.27 root = /dev/hda1 label = First_Drive read-only image = /vmlinuz-2.0.27 root = /dev/hdb1 label = Other_Drive read-only Joseph> I have a controller card, el-cheapo $19.00, that controls Joseph> 2 IDE HD's, 2 Floppies, 2 Serial Ports and 1 Parallel Joseph> Printer port. Aha! Here's perhaps the source of your confusion: your controller card only has one IDE port. Thus, your dilemma is solved -- you don't have the option of putting the second disk on the secondary port. For you, the master disk will be /dev/hda and the slave /dev/hdb. Joseph> Sorry for my elementary questions. Any advice will be Joseph> appreciated. No need to apologize. Just try to help out others with similar problems once you have learned the ropes. -- Nathan L. Cutler Linux Enthusiast http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~nlc -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
I am writing my questions in between the text, if anyone can answer them I would appreciate it. On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Pete Templin wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jan 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'd like to install Debian Linux into various partitions on 2 harddisks. > > hdb holds 400 MB, and hdc around 1.1 GB. Why are you not using hda and hdb? what determines which one you use? I have two HD's. Right now only one is hooked up -- it is my hda, a 1.6G Western Digital, running Redhat. I wish to hook up in addition a 340 Meg Connor. I would like that to be the slave so that I can keep my WD stuff where it is. I want to install Debian on the 340 Meg drive until I convince myself if I want Debian on the 1.6G drive. I would like to boot up on either one. How do I arrange that? The second one would be hdb, would it not? . Each drive will be partitioned by using linux fdisk, and each drive has a small DOS partition on hda1 and hdb1. I do not wish to use both disks for one distribution just yet (I understand the merit of doing that, however). I want to get Debian running on my "test" 340 meg drive, without disturbing my "running system". Can I get lilo to boot from either drive? How? > > You bet. If possible, stick to hda and hdc. I saw a 10 to 1 performance > improvement in Win95 ScanDisk when I moved my second 1.2G Western Digital > to secondary master from primary slave (primary master is an identical 1.2 > WD). I don't understand this statement. What exactly is the relation between hda, hdb, and hdc? Do you have one controller that runs two HD's? What is your hardware configuration? I have a controller card, el-cheapo $19.00, that controls 2 IDE HD's, 2 Floppies, 2 Serial Ports and 1 Parallel Printer port. > But yes, NOTHING wrong with splitting across two drives. Try to > split them intelligently for best performance. Here's some of my thoughts > on partitioning: when you are reading data, you want it now. /home and > /usr should not be on the same disk (launching emacs on a file will be > reading both the executable and the file). /var probably should be on a > different disk than /usr (same as /home?) because daemons want to write to > their log file as they are starting up, etc. These are good ideas. I like this, and when I get past my "experimental" phase I will do this also. Thank you. > > Here's a df on my server: > > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hda1 19485 10253 8226 55% / > /dev/hda2 223494 14678165172 69% /usr > /dev/hdc3 198123 11279 176613 6% /var > /dev/hdc4 288354 542 272919 0% /tmp > /dev/hda3 5600605788 525343 1% /nfs > /dev/hdb12990073 2038838 796610 72% /server > > /dev/hdc2 is a 120M swap. /nfs holds /home and /var/spool/mail, you'll > see why in a minute. > > Here's a df on my workstation: > > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hda3 39039785529168 21% / > /dev/hda4 577609 307494 240279 56% /usr > /dev/hdc3 99539764686753 8% /var > /dev/hdc4 201043 37 190624 0% /tmp > templinux:/nfs5600605789 525342 1% /nfs > > hda1 is 200M FAT (Win95 OS). hda2 is 400M NTFS (WinNTW 4.0). hdc1 is > 800M FAT (Common 95/NT apps). hdc2 is 120M swap. > > On both machines, /home is a symlink to /nfs/home, and /var/spool/mail is > a symlink to /nfs/spool/mail, allowing easy NFS mounting of user files > with only one NFS mount (and one partition!). > > > Finally, as far as I know, / doesn't have to be a primary partition. But are > > there any advantages to designating it as primary? > > I try to make every partition a primary, if possible (keep in mind that > Linux can have four primaries, unlike DOS). I've seen a few (albeit older > and non-Debian) Linux fdisk's choke on the whole extended/logical deal. Sorry for my elementary questions. Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you for your post, Pete. Best Regards, Joe Hartmann Tel: (603) 863 6073 K2AJV -issued email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1951 home-page: http://www.sugar-river.net/~joeh - First Student at the: Linux Academy in the Sunshine Town of Newport, NH Thanks to RMS, Linus, and other contributors of free software! - I grant this to the public domain - > > --Pete > ___ > Peter J. Templin, Jr. Client Services Analyst > Computer & Communication Services tel: (717) 524-1590 > Bucknell University [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Re: OK to install across 2 HDs?
On Sat, 4 Jan 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd like to install Debian Linux into various partitions on 2 harddisks. > hdb holds 400 MB, and hdc around 1.1 GB. You bet. If possible, stick to hda and hdc. I saw a 10 to 1 performance improvement in Win95 ScanDisk when I moved my second 1.2G Western Digital to secondary master from primary slave (primary master is an identical 1.2 WD). But yes, NOTHING wrong with splitting across two drives. Try to split them intelligently for best performance. Here's some of my thoughts on partitioning: when you are reading data, you want it now. /home and /usr should not be on the same disk (launching emacs on a file will be reading both the executable and the file). /var probably should be on a different disk than /usr (same as /home?) because daemons want to write to their log file as they are starting up, etc. Here's a df on my server: Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/hda1 19485 10253 8226 55% / /dev/hda2 223494 14678165172 69% /usr /dev/hdc3 198123 11279 176613 6% /var /dev/hdc4 288354 542 272919 0% /tmp /dev/hda3 5600605788 525343 1% /nfs /dev/hdb12990073 2038838 796610 72% /server /dev/hdc2 is a 120M swap. /nfs holds /home and /var/spool/mail, you'll see why in a minute. Here's a df on my workstation: Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/hda3 39039785529168 21% / /dev/hda4 577609 307494 240279 56% /usr /dev/hdc3 99539764686753 8% /var /dev/hdc4 201043 37 190624 0% /tmp templinux:/nfs5600605789 525342 1% /nfs hda1 is 200M FAT (Win95 OS). hda2 is 400M NTFS (WinNTW 4.0). hdc1 is 800M FAT (Common 95/NT apps). hdc2 is 120M swap. On both machines, /home is a symlink to /nfs/home, and /var/spool/mail is a symlink to /nfs/spool/mail, allowing easy NFS mounting of user files with only one NFS mount (and one partition!). > Finally, as far as I know, / doesn't have to be a primary partition. But are > there any advantages to designating it as primary? I try to make every partition a primary, if possible (keep in mind that Linux can have four primaries, unlike DOS). I've seen a few (albeit older and non-Debian) Linux fdisk's choke on the whole extended/logical deal. --Pete ___ Peter J. Templin, Jr. Client Services Analyst Computer & Communication Services tel: (717) 524-1590 Bucknell University [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK to install across 2 HDs?
Howdy! I suppose it's a silly question, but one I haven't seen mentioned in the documentation yet: I'd like to install Debian Linux into various partitions on 2 harddisks. hdb holds 400 MB, and hdc around 1.1 GB. Would it be possible to put /, /var, /swap, /home, and (perhaps /local or /pub, which might not be Debian-like partitions to create) on hdb and leave hdc free for /usr? Alternatively, could I create /, /swap, and /usr on hdc, and fit the other partitions onto hdb? This would put the bootable partition farther down the queue (or something) than /home and /var, etc., but might be convenient, if it wouldn't engender kernel panic. Finally, as far as I know, / doesn't have to be a primary partition. But are there any advantages to designating it as primary? Thanks in advance. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Manning, Seattle) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
