Linux's HPFS Support

For several years, I've been recommending Mandrake & SuSE to OS/2 & eCS
users who wish to try Linux. This has been because HPFS support has been
compiled into their stock configurations by default, as opposed to
RedHat (since about v7) and Fedora that don't.

This seems to have changed in SuSE 9.2. I get error messages on
attempting to mount HPFS on two different machines, that IIRC are the
same messages I see trying to do the same on Fedora.

It would be nice if the community had a wiki to host information about
HPFS access in Linux. So far, I've not found an existing one. It could
include 1-HOWTOs for noobs for compiling kernels for the more popular
distros; 2-lists of which distros do and don't compile HPFS support into
stock configurations; and 3-locations of or hosting for custom HPFS
support kernels that our community members have compiled on their own
for those wishing more expedience than learning how to and waiting on
kernel compilation. Since we haven't lost Hobbes yet, it could host
kernels contributed by those who've already performed the task and would
like to share. :-)
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Felix Miata wrote:[color=blue]
> For several years, I've been recommending Mandrake & SuSE to OS/2 & eCS
> users who wish to try Linux. This has been because HPFS support has been
> compiled into their stock configurations by default, as opposed to
> RedHat (since about v7) and Fedora that don't.
>
> This seems to have changed in SuSE 9.2. I get error messages on
> attempting to mount HPFS on two different machines, that IIRC are the
> same messages I see trying to do the same on Fedora.
>
> It would be nice if the community had a wiki to host information about
> HPFS access in Linux. So far, I've not found an existing one. It could
> include 1-HOWTOs for noobs for compiling kernels for the more popular
> distros; 2-lists of which distros do and don't compile HPFS support into
> stock configurations; and 3-locations of or hosting for custom HPFS
> support kernels that our community members have compiled on their own
> for those wishing more expedience than learning how to and waiting on
> kernel compilation. Since we haven't lost Hobbes yet, it could host
> kernels contributed by those who've already performed the task and would
> like to share. :-)[/color]

Hi Felix

Your e-mail is opportune, as I've been spending most of my weekend so
far on this very issue. I usually run SuSE 9.2 alongside OS/2, but I
just got hold of Xandros 3.0 yesterday and have been experimenting.

I've never had a problem with SuSE 9.2 recognising my HPFS partitions
for both read and write access. The 9.2 kernel certainly is compiled
for HPFS support (as a module I think - need to check). All I really
have to do is modify /etc/fstab for my HPFS partitions and set up the
mount points. Works fine for me in both KDE and Gnome. GRUB is also
very OS/2 friendly, I tend to use it in my MBR to fire up OS/2's Boot
Manager. It can work the other way around if GRUB lives in the SuSE
boot partition, but that's messier and I don't recommend that way.

Xandros 3.0 is a totally different and unhappier story. It *doesn't*
have HPFS support compiled in (in fact it doesn't recognise anything
other than ext2, ext3, Reiser, FAT, FAT32, NTFS etc.) My whole OS/2
setup is totally invisible to Xandros, it can't even see Boot Manager.
Another negative is that Xandros uses LILO instead of GRUB. Xandros
installs as smooth as butter, but it can't see HPFS partitions and can't
boot OS/2 out of the box. I've been messing around trying to compile
HPFS support into the Xandros kernel or as a module, with no success.
Xandros also seems to have an automated script that builds LILO's conf
file on each reboot, wiping away anything I put into it. If I had to
summarise Xandros, I'd say it's both "too dumb" and "too smart" for its
own good. To be fair though, it's targetted at WIN XP boxes. I really
got it for my wife but couldn't resist playing with it. Forgetting its
OS/2 blindness for a moment, it's actually very polished and pleasant to
use, so I may still press on with the HPFS compiling attempts and boot
configurations.

If anyone's managed to get Xandros 3 working well with OS/2, I'd like to
know!

I also used to play around with Red Hat and Caldera in particular, but
that was a while back and I can't remember what my findings were.

Cameron

stonebank2 wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> I've never had a problem with SuSE 9.2 recognising my HPFS partitions
> for both read and write access. The 9.2 kernel certainly is compiled
> for HPFS support (as a module I think - need to check). All I really
> have to do is modify /etc/fstab for my HPFS partitions and set up the
> mount points. Works fine for me in both KDE and Gnome. GRUB is also
> very OS/2 friendly, I tend to use it in my MBR to fire up OS/2's Boot
> Manager. It can work the other way around if GRUB lives in the SuSE
> boot partition, but that's messier and I don't recommend that way.
>[/color]
Would you share your setup? I am playing about with Ubuntu which is
suspect is the same as Xandros re: HPFS. I haven't got a working system
yet though as I can't seem to get the BM to see the GRUB on the Linux
EXT3 drive. Maybe I missed something in the setup but I really did not
want to screw my system putting GRUB in the MBR.
Just for your info and if anyone wants to jump in here please do: I have:
OS/2 Boot manager 8MB
Primary with WinNT Fat16
Logicals D: Fat16
E: Fat16
F: Fat16
G: HPFS OS/2
H: Fat16
I: Fat16
J: HPFS
K: HPFS
L: HPFS
M: NTFS WinData
N: HPFS Data
O: Ext3 Ubuntu Linux

Pretty messy, long story...
Whats it best to do here? I guess I need GRUB on O: but someone
suggested it needs to be at sector 0 of /boot.

Craig

OK

First off, if any distro kernel packagers are reading, please consider
compiling HPFS support into your distro kernels as standard - it's not
called the HIGH PERFORMANCE FILE SYSTEM for nothing! I'd also comment
that I think LILO's best days are behind it - GRUB is the future.

I also suspect that Ubuntu wouldn't have HPFS support compiled in - it
seems to be a fact of life these days. I actually bit the bullet last
night and created a FAT32 "shared data" partition so that OS/2 and any
Linux flavour can see it, which obviates the need to recompile kernels
for HPFS support. It irritates me a bit that I have to use an M$ file
system when I don't even run M$, but FAT32 seems to be a pragmatic way
to get around this issue. The latest FAT32IFS is now at version 0.99,
which means it's pretty solid these days. More info here:

[url]http://fat32.netlabs.org/[/url]

Anyway, until a few days ago I had the following setup more or less:

Primaries
OS/2 Boot Manager hda1
C: HPFS (OS/2 "production") hda2
Extended hda4

Logicals
D: HPFS (OS/2 "maintenance") hda5
E: HPFS (Data) hda6
F: HPFS (Data) hda7
Linux swap hda8
reiserfs (SuSE 9.2) hda9

With this setup, I had SuSE's GRUB in the MBR configured for SuSE itself
and OS/2 Boot Manager - the latter booted either C: or D: in the classic
way. I also had SuSE configured to have E: and F: mounted on /os2/E and
/os2/F respectively for read and write access. No kernel recompiling is
needed for this to work, SuSE 9.2 has HPFS support compiled as standard.
A SuSE 9.2 install will automatically find OS/2 Boot Manager without
any problem and add it to GRUB's menu. You need to manually edit
/etc/fstab and create your mount points, but other than that it just
works for me.

Two things I'd note:

1)
Linux literature seems to state that HPFS support extends only to *read*
access. I've always been able to *write* as well, so the literature has
always puzzled me on that point.

2)
If you're certain that you've got an HPFS enabled kernel - either out of
the box or modified - and your /etc/fstab and mount points look ok, then
it's worth doing at least a simple chkdsk /f:2 on the HPFS partitions if
it doesn't seem to work (from OS/2 of course). Linux, being of the same
quality as OS/2, will do consistency checks before mounting.

My current setup, which I'm still playing with, looks like this:

Primaries
OS/2 Boot Manager hda1
C: FAT16 (PC DOS 2000) hda2
C: HPFS (OS/2 "production") hda3
Extended hda4

Logicals
D: HPFS (OS/2 "maintenance") hda5
E: HPFS (Data) hda6
F: HPFS (Data) hda7
G: FAT32 (shared) hda8
Linux swap hda9
reiserfs (SuSE 9.2) hda10
reiserfs (Xandros 3) hda11

SuSE 9.2 and Xandros 3 share the Linux swap without drama.

What I'm attempting to do with this setup now is something like this:

* use OS/2 Boot Manager to boot both C: partitions and D:
* install Xandros LILO on root of hda11 only, *not* MBR
* install SuSE GRUB on MBR to boot OS/2 Boot Manager and Xandros LILO

I'm still playing around with permutations of this idea.

You say that you "can't get the BM to see the GRUB". By "BM" I assume
you mean OS/2's Boot Manager. If so, I don't recommend trying that.

OS/2 Boot Manager can be made to boot LILO (and GRUB I think), but you
*must* use OS/2's FDISK (or LVM) to create the partitions that will be
used for Linux as FAT16 and add them to the BM menu *before* installing
Linux. Then use Linux install to reformat them (as ext2/3, reiserfs or
whatever). This sort of setup is quite fragile and can be messy to fix
if it breaks.

Cameron

Craig wrote:[color=blue]
> stonebank2 wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> I've never had a problem with SuSE 9.2 recognising my HPFS partitions
>> for both read and write access. The 9.2 kernel certainly is compiled
>> for HPFS support (as a module I think - need to check). All I really
>> have to do is modify /etc/fstab for my HPFS partitions and set up the
>> mount points. Works fine for me in both KDE and Gnome. GRUB is also
>> very OS/2 friendly, I tend to use it in my MBR to fire up OS/2's Boot
>> Manager. It can work the other way around if GRUB lives in the SuSE
>> boot partition, but that's messier and I don't recommend that way.
>>[/color]
> Would you share your setup? I am playing about with Ubuntu which is
> suspect is the same as Xandros re: HPFS. I haven't got a working system
> yet though as I can't seem to get the BM to see the GRUB on the Linux
> EXT3 drive. Maybe I missed something in the setup but I really did not
> want to screw my system putting GRUB in the MBR.
> Just for your info and if anyone wants to jump in here please do: I have:
> OS/2 Boot manager 8MB
> Primary with WinNT Fat16
> Logicals D: Fat16
> E: Fat16
> F: Fat16
> G: HPFS OS/2
> H: Fat16
> I: Fat16
> J: HPFS
> K: HPFS
> L: HPFS
> M: NTFS WinData
> N: HPFS Data
> O: Ext3 Ubuntu Linux
>
> Pretty messy, long story...
> Whats it best to do here? I guess I need GRUB on O: but someone
> suggested it needs to be at sector 0 of /boot.
>
> Craig[/color]

Felix Miata wrote:
[color=blue]
> For several years, I've been recommending Mandrake & SuSE to OS/2 & eCS
> users who wish to try Linux. This has been because HPFS support has been
> compiled into their stock configurations by default, as opposed to
> RedHat (since about v7) and Fedora that don't.[/color]
[color=blue]
> This seems to have changed in SuSE 9.2. I get error messages on
> attempting to mount HPFS on two different machines, that IIRC are the
> same messages I see trying to do the same on Fedora.[/color]

I was wrong. I managed to err on both 9.2 installs. On one, I forgot to
create the mount points to match the hpfs partitions to be mounted. On
the other, I set an invalid mount option in fstab that created a useless
generic error message when mount was attempted. Both systems now happily
access hpfs partitions.

If only Samba 3 on 9.2 could access my OS/2 shares. :-(
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

stonebank2 wrote:
[color=blue]
> Felix Miata wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > It would be nice if the community had a wiki to host information about
> > HPFS access in Linux. So far, I've not found an existing one. It could
> > include 1-HOWTOs for noobs for compiling kernels for the more popular
> > distros; 2-lists of which distros do and don't compile HPFS support into
> > stock configurations; and 3-locations of or hosting for custom HPFS
> > support kernels that our community members have compiled on their own
> > for those wishing more expedience than learning how to and waiting on
> > kernel compilation. Since we haven't lost Hobbes yet, it could host
> > kernels contributed by those who've already performed the task and would
> > like to share. :-)[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I've never had a problem with SuSE 9.2 recognising my HPFS partitions
> for both read and write access. The 9.2 kernel certainly is compiled
> for HPFS support (as a module I think - need to check). All I really
> have to do is modify /etc/fstab for my HPFS partitions and set up the
> mount points. Works fine for me in both KDE and Gnome. GRUB is also[/color]

As you can see from my post a few minutes ago, I botched my 9.2
installs. HPFS support is indeed included and working in SuSE 9.2.
[color=blue]
> very OS/2 friendly, I tend to use it in my MBR to fire up OS/2's Boot
> Manager. It can work the other way around if GRUB lives in the SuSE
> boot partition, but that's messier and I don't recommend that way.[/color]

That's the only way I do it. OS/2 boot on logical needs BM anyway, so I
see no reason not to use it for everything.
[color=blue]
> Xandros 3.0 is a totally different and unhappier story. It *doesn't*
> have HPFS support compiled in (in fact it doesn't recognise anything
> other than ext2, ext3, Reiser, FAT, FAT32, NTFS etc.) My whole OS/2
> setup is totally invisible to Xandros, it can't even see Boot Manager.
> Another negative is that Xandros uses LILO instead of GRUB. Xandros
> installs as smooth as butter, but it can't see HPFS partitions and can't
> boot OS/2 out of the box. I've been messing around trying to compile
> HPFS support into the Xandros kernel or as a module, with no success.
> Xandros also seems to have an automated script that builds LILO's conf
> file on each reboot, wiping away anything I put into it. If I had to
> summarise Xandros, I'd say it's both "too dumb" and "too smart" for its
> own good. To be fair though, it's targetted at WIN XP boxes. I really
> got it for my wife but couldn't resist playing with it. Forgetting its
> OS/2 blindness for a moment, it's actually very polished and pleasant to
> use, so I may still press on with the HPFS compiling attempts and boot
> configurations.[/color]
[color=blue]
> If anyone's managed to get Xandros 3 working well with OS/2, I'd like to
> know![/color]

I had no problem installing Xandros 2 open (standard/download) edition.
I put it on a multiboot system with DOS, W2K, OS/2, RedHat 7.3, Mandrake
8.1 & SuSE 8.2. Xandros lilo went to its root on /dev/sdc9, and I added
a Xandros entry to the SuSE /dev/hda5 /boot/grub/menu.lst file to load
that. Naturally, without HPFS support, I don't often boot Xandros, but
it is nice as a distro for windoze users to migrate to.
[color=blue]
> I also used to play around with Red Hat and Caldera in particular, but
> that was a while back and I can't remember what my findings were.[/color]

RedHat dropped HPFS after version 6.2 sometime. It was gone by 7.3.
Fedora Core, as successor to RedHat, omits HPFS support.

Caldera I already forgot. It's dead now, and so shouldn't matter to
anyone, but I think it did have HPFS built in.
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Craig wrote:
[color=blue]
> Would you share your setup? I am playing about with Ubuntu which is
> suspect is the same as Xandros re: HPFS. I haven't got a working system
> yet though as I can't seem to get the BM to see the GRUB on the Linux
> EXT3 drive. Maybe I missed something in the setup but I really did not
> want to screw my system putting GRUB in the MBR.
> Just for your info and if anyone wants to jump in here please do: I have:
> OS/2 Boot manager 8MB
> Primary with WinNT Fat16
> Logicals D: Fat16
> E: Fat16
> F: Fat16
> G: HPFS OS/2
> H: Fat16
> I: Fat16
> J: HPFS
> K: HPFS
> L: HPFS
> M: NTFS WinData
> N: HPFS Data
> O: Ext3 Ubuntu Linux[/color]
[color=blue]
> Pretty messy, long story...
> Whats it best to do here? I guess I need GRUB on O: but someone
> suggested it needs to be at sector 0 of /boot.[/color]

It needs to be on the partition mounted as /boot, but /boot is just a
directory on / unless you consciously made a separate partition to mount
as /boot, which is what I normally do with at least the first Linux
distro per system. To get the Ubuntu partition into your BM menu, all
you need do is the same thing you would do if it was an OS/2 boot
logical. If your system is lacking INT13X either in your OS/2 BM version
or in your motherboard BIOS, then the position of the Ubuntu partition
at the end of the disk might be your problem (above cylinder 1023). New
machines with WSeB, MCP or eCS don't have this problem. Warp 4 typically
does. See also below URL.
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Hi Felix

Could you possibly post your GRUB stanza for Xandros as you've described
in the scenario below.

I think I'm terribly close, but no cigar on that part of my setup. Have
tried both the image and chainloader approach - probably just one or two
parms not quite right.

Thanks

Cameron

Felix Miata wrote:[color=blue]
> stonebank2 wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Felix Miata wrote:[/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>If anyone's managed to get Xandros 3 working well with OS/2, I'd like to
>>know![/color]
>
>
> I had no problem installing Xandros 2 open (standard/download) edition.
> I put it on a multiboot system with DOS, W2K, OS/2, RedHat 7.3, Mandrake
> 8.1 & SuSE 8.2. Xandros lilo went to its root on /dev/sdc9, and I added
> a Xandros entry to the SuSE /dev/hda5 /boot/grub/menu.lst file to load
> that. Naturally, without HPFS support, I don't often boot Xandros, but
> it is nice as a distro for windoze users to migrate to.
>
>[/color]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:33:47 +1000, stonebank2
<stonebank2@optusnet.com.au> wrote:[color=blue]
> I also suspect that Ubuntu wouldn't have HPFS support compiled in - it
> seems to be a fact of life these days. I actually bit the bullet last
> night and created a FAT32 "shared data" partition so that OS/2 and any
> Linux flavour can see it, which obviates the need to recompile kernels
> for HPFS support. It irritates me a bit that I have to use an M$ file
> system when I don't even run M$, but FAT32 seems to be a pragmatic way
> to get around this issue.[/color]

Why the aversion to recompiling the kernel with HPFS support? IMO every
serious Linux user should know how to recompile their kernel, and in fact
should do so when customizing their system, to get rid of all the crap
(unused drivers etc) that get compiled into it by the distributors.

It's not that hard, especially not once you've done it a couple of times.
Just don't make the mistake of using 'make config'; I recommend 'make
menuconfig'.
[color=blue]
> Linux literature seems to state that HPFS support extends only to *read*
> access. I've always been able to *write* as well, so the literature has
> always puzzled me on that point.[/color]

Because for years it was true. Read-write HPFS support is a relatively
recent development (I think it was first integrated in the 2.4 kernel,
although it was available as a third-party module for 2.2). By that time,
though, nobody who was writing Linux literature really gave a damn about
OS/2 anymore.

--
Alex Taylor
[url]http://www.cs-club.org/~alex[/url]

Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

hi
[color=blue]
> Alex Taylor wrote:[/color]
----- snip[color=blue]
> Because for years it was true.[/color]

I do agree in your remarks around hpfs and linux. but also would like
to recommend "hpfs.txt" somewhere in your linux ('locate hpfs' is one of
the better advantages coming from os/2 :-) ).
There seems to be a few different behaviors.


--
good luck

peter

Alex Taylor wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:33:47 +1000, stonebank2
> <stonebank2@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I also suspect that Ubuntu wouldn't have HPFS support compiled in - it
>>seems to be a fact of life these days. I actually bit the bullet last
>>night and created a FAT32 "shared data" partition so that OS/2 and any
>>Linux flavour can see it, which obviates the need to recompile kernels
>>for HPFS support. It irritates me a bit that I have to use an M$ file
>>system when I don't even run M$, but FAT32 seems to be a pragmatic way
>>to get around this issue.[/color]
>
>
> Why the aversion to recompiling the kernel with HPFS support? IMO every
> serious Linux user should know how to recompile their kernel, and in fact
> should do so when customizing their system, to get rid of all the crap
> (unused drivers etc) that get compiled into it by the distributors.
>
> It's not that hard, especially not once you've done it a couple of times.
> Just don't make the mistake of using 'make config'; I recommend 'make
> menuconfig'.
>[/color]

I agree it's not hard and it is a fairly simple concept, but that wasn't
really what I was getting at. I've been compiling Linux kernels for the
past seven years or so. As a systems manager for many years before that
I also had to regularly squeeze every bit of performance I could from HP
minicomputers and so on, quarter ton things with architectures that made
anything smaller seem like toys to me - OS/2 and Linux made me change my
view there! So as an ex tech-head, I still have a tweaking urge for any
PC operating system operating that's worth it.

In recent years though, I've been on the other side of the fence, with a
business as well as technology focus. I've got a keen interest in doing
my little bit, as many others around the world are also, to make Linux a
serious desktop alternative for government use in particular. I'd argue
that a "serious Linux user" in this wider context is not about compiling
kernels, it's about business users, open standards, interoperability and
being able to get the job done better with a lower TCO and good support.

So on my home setup, I prefer to get things up and running smoothly so I
can start being productive, the tweaking should come later. That for me
means having at least one partition that any modern Linux flavour should
be able to see out of the box, so that I have instant access to drivers
and configuration notes I may need straight away. FAT32 seems to be the
pragmatic choice for that these days. Another consideration is that the
modern Linux distributions are becoming more sophisticated in the way of
scripting and configuration. Poking around in Xandros reveals some
very fancy stuff that needs some study first. I did a quick kernel
recompile the other night with no errors but quite a few module warnings
which I'd prefer to look closely at later rather than installation time.
Now that I have everything operational, I'll probably revisit Xandros
& HPFS when I get some spare time.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:14:07 +0100, Peter Volsted wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > Alex Taylor wrote:[/color]
> ----- snip[color=green]
>> Because for years it was true.[/color]
>
> I do agree in your remarks around hpfs and linux. but also would like
> to recommend "hpfs.txt" somewhere in your linux ('locate hpfs' is one of
> the better advantages coming from os/2 :-) ).
> There seems to be a few different behaviors.[/color]

Here MDK 9.1.5 (because I've applied so many 9.2 RPMs to my 9.1 install):

|$ locate hpfs
|/usr/share/webmin/mount/images/hpfs.gif
|/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs_sb.h
|/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs.h
|/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs_i.h
|/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs
|/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz
|/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs
|/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz

No "hpfs.txt" here, and I don't have OS/2 on this MDK box.
But, it looks like there's HPFS kernel module(s) there.
I do vaguely remember "hpfs.txt" from my OS/2 W3C/RH 6.2 box.
I had read-only HPFS access working there from RH 6.2. But I set it
up more as a curiosity and an exercise.
I did not/do not use it much - if at all, anymore.

A search on linux sites for "hpfs.txt":

[url]http://www.google.com/linux?q=%22hpfs.txt%22&btnG=Google+Search[/url]

Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK

hi
[color=blue]
> Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:14:07 +0100, Peter Volsted wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Alex Taylor wrote:[/color]
>>
>>----- snip
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Because for years it was true.[/color]
>>
>>I do agree in your remarks around hpfs and linux. but also would like
>>to recommend "hpfs.txt" somewhere in your linux ('locate hpfs' is one of
>>the better advantages coming from os/2 :-) ).
>>There seems to be a few different behaviors.[/color]
>
>
> Here MDK 9.1.5 (because I've applied so many 9.2 RPMs to my 9.1 install):
>
> |$ locate hpfs
> |/usr/share/webmin/mount/images/hpfs.gif
> |/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs_sb.h
> |/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs.h
> |/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs_i.h
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz
>
> No "hpfs.txt" here, and I don't have OS/2 on this MDK box.
> But, it looks like there's HPFS kernel module(s) there.
> I do vaguely remember "hpfs.txt" from my OS/2 W3C/RH 6.2 box.
> I had read-only HPFS access working there from RH 6.2. But I set it
> up more as a curiosity and an exercise.
> I did not/do not use it much - if at all, anymore.
>
> A search on linux sites for "hpfs.txt":
>
> [url]http://www.google.com/linux?q=%22hpfs.txt%22&btnG=Google+Search[/url]
>
> Jonesy[/color]

According to 'hpfs.txt' you can download the driver as a tarball from
the authors site:
< http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/vyplody/hpfs/index-e.cgi>
I haven't verified, but guess that will also contain the text-file.


--
good luck

peter

On 2005-02-17, Allodoxaphobia <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I do agree in your remarks around hpfs and linux. but also would like
>> to recommend "hpfs.txt" somewhere in your linux ('locate hpfs' is one of
>> the better advantages coming from os/2 :-) ).
>> There seems to be a few different behaviors.[/color]
>
> Here MDK 9.1.5 (because I've applied so many 9.2 RPMs to my 9.1 install):
>
> |$ locate hpfs
> |/usr/share/webmin/mount/images/hpfs.gif
> |/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs_sb.h
> |/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs.h
> |/usr/include/linux/hpfs_fs_i.h
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs
> |/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz
>
> No "hpfs.txt" here, and I don't have OS/2 on this MDK box.[/color]

Do you have the kernel sources installed? You'll find hpfs.txt in
/usr/src/linux-[nnn]/Documentation/filesystems/hpfs.txt

Otherwise, drop me an email and I can send it to you.
[color=blue]
> But, it looks like there's HPFS kernel module(s) there.[/color]

Yeah, but it's odd that they're compressed. Does Mandrake do on-the-fly
decompression when it loads modules?

--

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:07:52 GMT, John Thompson wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2005-02-17, Allodoxaphobia <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> But, it looks like there's HPFS kernel module(s) there.[/color]
>
> Yeah, but it's odd that they're compressed. Does Mandrake do on-the-fly
> decompression when it loads modules?[/color]

Yep. With my MB, I _have_ to use modeprobe to load the 3c509 moduel:

$ locate 3c509
/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.13mdk/kernel/drivers/net/3c509.o.gz
/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/drivers/net/3c509.o.gz

So, my modules.conf has these lines:

options 3c509 irq=10
alias eth0 3c509

So, it would work for

/lib/modules/2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk/kernel/fs/hpfs/hpfs.o.gz

as well.

Linux is way kewl in the no-nonsense way it does a lot of things.

Regards,
Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:48:21 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
[color=blue]
>. On one, I forgot to
>create the mount points to match the hpfs partitions to be mounted.[/color]

And how does one go about accessing an hpfs partition that is on a different
computer on a network? samba - Or is that for Win? I'd like to be able to
access it just like I would with a mount point for a hpfs partition on the
same drive. How would I do that?

Thanks, Jon

On 2005-02-18, Jon <jharrison@removeflimflam-seadog.reno.nv.us> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:48:21 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>[color=green]
>>. On one, I forgot to
>>create the mount points to match the hpfs partitions to be mounted.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> And how does one go about accessing an hpfs partition that is on a different
> computer on a network? samba - Or is that for Win? I'd like to be able to
> access it just like I would with a mount point for a hpfs partition on the
> same drive. How would I do that?[/color]

If you have OS/2 peer services installed, you can use samba to access the
filesystem over a network.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Jon wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:48:21 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> >. On one, I forgot to
> >create the mount points to match the hpfs partitions to be mounted.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> And how does one go about accessing an hpfs partition that is on a different
> computer on a network? samba - Or is that for Win? I'd like to be able to
> access it just like I would with a mount point for a hpfs partition on the
> same drive. How would I do that?[/color]

Samba used to work. It still does, if you're using Samba v2. Changes in
v3 to support changes in windoze networking broke Samba for OS/2. v3
will probably never be properly fixed for OS/2, but v4 should work when
it finally arrives, maybe before the end of this year. Scuttlebutt is
that IBM is providing some help to Samba 4 developers.
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

stonebank2 wrote:
[color=blue]
> Felix Miata wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > stonebank2 wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Felix Miata wrote:[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>If anyone's managed to get Xandros 3 working well with OS/2, I'd like to
> >>know![/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I had no problem installing Xandros 2 open (standard/download) edition.
> > I put it on a multiboot system with DOS, W2K, OS/2, RedHat 7.3, Mandrake
> > 8.1 & SuSE 8.2. Xandros lilo went to its root on /dev/sdc9, and I added
> > a Xandros entry to the SuSE /dev/hda5 /boot/grub/menu.lst file to load
> > that. Naturally, without HPFS support, I don't often boot Xandros, but
> > it is nice as a distro for windoze users to migrate to.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Could you possibly post your GRUB stanza for Xandros as you've described
> in the scenario below.[/color]
[color=blue]
> I think I'm terribly close, but no cigar on that part of my setup. Have
> tried both the image and chainloader approach - probably just one or two
> parms not quite right.[/color]

title Xandros Linux 2 Text Console - runlevel 2
root (hd2,8)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.24-x1 ro root=/dev/sdb9 acpi=on
initrd /boot/initrd-2.4.24-x1.gz
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

stonebank2 wrote:
[color=blue]
> OS/2 Boot Manager can be made to boot LILO (and GRUB I think), but you[/color]

Lilo is an anachronism. Grub is today and the future. BM doesn't boot,
it just shifts control, and Grub accepts.
[color=blue]
> *must* use OS/2's FDISK (or LVM) to create the partitions that will be[/color]

Hogwash. Multibooters should be using an agnostic partitioner. I use
DFSee.
[color=blue]
> used for Linux as FAT16 and add them to the BM menu *before* installing
> Linux. Then use Linux install to reformat them (as ext2/3, reiserfs or[/color]

There's no need for any formatting prior to installation. Linux wants to
format during install anyway.
[color=blue]
> whatever). This sort of setup is quite fragile and can be messy to fix
> if it breaks.[/color]

No need to break it if you stay away from OS-specific tools for disk
management. Partition first, then begin installation. Easy. Safe.

See also URL below.
--
"He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die." John 11:25 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** [url]http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html[/url]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----