10.2 partitioning. Sucks! - Suse

This is a discussion on 10.2 partitioning. Sucks! - Suse ; I've a user who's using 10.1. We wanted to update/replace that with OpenSuse 10.2. I've oodles of experience doing Linux installs; a decade or more of them, actually. I'm very proficient with raw fdisk and SystemRecueCD, for example. I run ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 82

Thread: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

  1. 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    I've a user who's using 10.1. We wanted to update/replace that with
    OpenSuse 10.2. I've oodles of experience doing Linux installs; a
    decade or more of them, actually. I'm very proficient with raw fdisk
    and SystemRecueCD, for example. I run Debian on my own machines.

    From what I've seen, OpenSuse 10.2 install is broken, partitioning-
    wise.

    On this box, we have Xubuntu, Suse 10.1, Kanotix, Win95, and Zenwalk
    (all of which I built it for him). 10.2 wants to do psychotic stuff
    in partitoning, as in re-allocating detected filesystems. Even with
    "Expert" mode, it:

    - does not list the existing swap partition, which the installer
    just activated and is using!

    - de-select "suggest separate /home ptn" still tries to use
    Xubuntu's root for Suse 10.2

    - Wants to use /dev/hda9 (a non-existent ptn) for (some random Suse
    10.2 ptn).

    - Wants to use Xubuntu's root ptn in Suse as /usr or /boot or /home
    ...

    I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"

    OpenSuse 10.2 failed. We're abandoning Suse. Zenwalk 4.6.1 (as an
    example) got it all right, as does stock Debian stable. OpenSuse 10.2
    apparently cannot be trusted in a multi-boot setting to *leave the
    others alone, damnit.* I definitely won't be back as long as this is
    the way it behaves.

    Back to the drawing board? I was impressed with Suse when I used it a
    few years ago. This installer (wrt partitioning) is broken and
    unusable in multi-boot settings. Caveat emptor.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  2. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    s. keeling wrote:

    > I've a user who's using 10.1. We wanted to update/replace that with
    > OpenSuse 10.2. I've oodles of experience doing Linux installs; a
    > decade or more of them, actually. I'm very proficient with raw fdisk
    > and SystemRecueCD, for example. I run Debian on my own machines.
    >
    > From what I've seen, OpenSuse 10.2 install is broken, partitioning-
    > wise.
    >
    > On this box, we have Xubuntu, Suse 10.1, Kanotix, Win95, and Zenwalk
    > (all of which I built it for him). 10.2 wants to do psychotic stuff
    > in partitoning, as in re-allocating detected filesystems. Even with
    > "Expert" mode, it:
    >
    > - does not list the existing swap partition, which the installer
    > just activated and is using!
    >
    > - de-select "suggest separate /home ptn" still tries to use
    > Xubuntu's root for Suse 10.2
    >
    > - Wants to use /dev/hda9 (a non-existent ptn) for (some random Suse
    > 10.2 ptn).
    >
    > - Wants to use Xubuntu's root ptn in Suse as /usr or /boot or /home
    > ...
    >
    > I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    > with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"
    >
    > OpenSuse 10.2 failed. We're abandoning Suse. Zenwalk 4.6.1 (as an
    > example) got it all right, as does stock Debian stable. OpenSuse 10.2
    > apparently cannot be trusted in a multi-boot setting to *leave the
    > others alone, damnit.* I definitely won't be back as long as this is
    > the way it behaves.
    >
    > Back to the drawing board? I was impressed with Suse when I used it a
    > few years ago. This installer (wrt partitioning) is broken and
    > unusable in multi-boot settings. Caveat emptor.
    >
    >

    Wow you are quite frustrated and I do understand why. Still, you've built a
    system with lots of stuff (why install so many OS systems and not choose
    one linux OS with a virtual environment for win95 and other linux
    flavors?), so the partitioning becomes indeed difficult; You asked for it I
    dare to say. OpenSuse could be certainly improved with partitioning (we had
    here a pc with 2 ata disks which took a long time to tweak into an
    multiboot system, which included many bios changes, but abandoning opensuse
    just because of some partitioning problems is perhaps not fair to say. I'm
    quite pleased with the distribution of 10.2
    taco

  3. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    s. keeling wrote:

    > I've a user who's using 10.1. We wanted to update/replace that with
    > OpenSuse 10.2. I've oodles of experience doing Linux installs; a
    > decade or more of them, actually. I'm very proficient with raw fdisk
    > and SystemRecueCD, for example. I run Debian on my own machines.
    >
    > From what I've seen, OpenSuse 10.2 install is broken, partitioning-
    > wise.
    >
    > On this box, we have Xubuntu, Suse 10.1, Kanotix, Win95, and Zenwalk
    > (all of which I built it for him). 10.2 wants to do psychotic stuff
    > in partitoning, as in re-allocating detected filesystems. Even with
    > "Expert" mode, it:
    >
    > - does not list the existing swap partition, which the installer
    > just activated and is using!
    >
    > - de-select "suggest separate /home ptn" still tries to use
    > Xubuntu's root for Suse 10.2
    >
    > - Wants to use /dev/hda9 (a non-existent ptn) for (some random Suse
    > 10.2 ptn).
    >
    > - Wants to use Xubuntu's root ptn in Suse as /usr or /boot or /home
    > ...
    >
    > I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    > with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"
    >
    > OpenSuse 10.2 failed. We're abandoning Suse. Zenwalk 4.6.1 (as an
    > example) got it all right, as does stock Debian stable. OpenSuse 10.2
    > apparently cannot be trusted in a multi-boot setting to *leave the
    > others alone, damnit.* I definitely won't be back as long as this is
    > the way it behaves.
    >
    > Back to the drawing board? I was impressed with Suse when I used it a
    > few years ago. This installer (wrt partitioning) is broken and
    > unusable in multi-boot settings. Caveat emptor.


    If you managed SUSE Linux 10.1 than openSUSE 10.2 should be a cake walk.
    The Expert Partitioning:
    - will list swap and all other partitions,
    - will obey limits that you set
    so I don't know what you call expert mode. There are 2 other choices based
    on YaST proposal, that are not expert mode.

    --
    Regards,
    Rajko.

  4. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    s. keeling wrote:
    > I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    > with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"


    Well, to me the EXPERT should be the person using it. That means it
    should say 'This is something I have figured out, but hey, YOU are the
    _expert_, figure it out yourself.

    Obviously you do not understand the concept of a 'proposal'.

    houghi
    --
    Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done,
    and why. Then do it.
    -- Heinlein : Time Enough For Love

  5. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    houghi wrote:

    > s. keeling wrote:
    >> I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    >> with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"

    >
    > Well, to me the EXPERT should be the person using it. That means it
    > should say 'This is something I have figured out, but hey, YOU are the
    > _expert_, figure it out yourself.
    >
    > Obviously you do not understand the concept of a 'proposal'.
    >
    > houghi


    there is a Distro just for partitioning called GParted

    I have used this and it is good

    My Number one recommendation for partitioning




    it even works with lesser operating systems

  6. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    Rajko M. wrote:

    > If you managed SUSE Linux 10.1 than openSUSE 10.2 should be a cake walk.
    > The Expert Partitioning:
    > - will list swap and all other partitions,
    > - will obey limits that you set
    > so I don't know what you call expert mode. There are 2 other choices based
    > on YaST proposal, that are not expert mode.


    I also had problems with the partitioning. It looked to me as if the
    swap partition must be "formatted" somehow, before SuSE can use it. At
    least it was not sufficient to set the partition type to "swap". I could
    solve that problem, using another VM with a working Linux, adding the
    swap partition as another virtual drive, and formatting it for a swap
    partition. Then I could resume to install SuSE 10.2, using that drive
    for swap.

    As long as I'm not sure which Linux to use, I'm happy with virtual
    machines, which I can swap in and out without any trouble for my host
    system.

    DoDi

  7. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    Hans-Peter Diettrich ha scritto:
    > It looked to me as if the
    > swap partition must be "formatted" somehow, before SuSE can use it. At
    > least it was not sufficient to set the partition type to "swap".


    of course it has to be formatted (mkswap), if I remember correctly in
    avanced mode you have to check the "format" box.

    --
    Lorenzo `paulatz' Paulatto
    Trieste

    ``Grandissima mi par l'inezia di coloro che vorrebbero che Iddio avesse
    fatto l'universo pił proporzionato alla piccola capacitą del lor discorso.''
    --Galileo Galilei (Opere VII)

  8. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, houghi wrote:-

    >s. keeling wrote:
    >> I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    >> with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"

    >
    >Well, to me the EXPERT should be the person using it.


    Well, since the expert tab provides many more customisation options, I
    think you could be right.

    >That means it
    >should say 'This is something I have figured out, but hey, YOU are the
    >_expert_, figure it out yourself.


    I think he's just selected the wrong installation option. He is/was
    wanting to upgrade/replace 10.1 with 10.2. Unless he's wanting a
    completely fresh install, the best option is to use the upgrade. And if
    he's wanting to do a fresh install, well I've included the required
    steps in my reply to him.

    >Obviously you do not understand the concept of a 'proposal'.


    Is that proposal decent or indecent? :-)


    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 100 Mnodes/s: www.distributed.net
    RISC OS 3.11 | SUSE 10.0 32bit | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit
    TOS 4.02 | SUSE 9.3 32bit | | openSUSE 10.3a6 32bit

  9. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, s. keeling wrote:-

    >I've a user who's using 10.1. We wanted to update/replace that with
    >OpenSuse 10.2. I've oodles of experience doing Linux installs; a
    >decade or more of them, actually. I'm very proficient with raw fdisk
    >and SystemRecueCD, for example. I run Debian on my own machines.
    >
    >From what I've seen, OpenSuse 10.2 install is broken, partitioning-
    >wise.


    Really? From where I sit it isn't[0]. Exactly what do you think is
    broken about it? And, before you answer, you might want to ask yourself
    why a partitioner that is basically the same as you used for 10.1,
    wasn't broken then, but suddenly is now.

    >On this box, we have Xubuntu, Suse 10.1, Kanotix, Win95, and Zenwalk
    >(all of which I built it for him).


    Nice selection.

    >10.2 wants to do psychotic stuff
    >in partitoning, as in re-allocating detected filesystems.


    Now here's something you've stumbled upon that I've seen before. When I
    installed 10.2 alongside a 10.1 install, the 10.2 installer wanted to
    reuse the 10.1 partitions. However, using the expert mode in the
    partitioner solved that very easily.

    >Even with
    >"Expert" mode, it:
    >
    > - does not list the existing swap partition, which the installer
    > just activated and is using!


    And you've reported this "bug" to Novell? You can do so via:



    > - de-select "suggest separate /home ptn" still tries to use
    > Xubuntu's root for Suse 10.2


    Well, as I already mentioned above, for some reason the (open)SUSE
    install system will reuse existing Linux partitions but leaves Windows
    partitions alone. Also, as I mentioned above, the custom partitioning
    sorted that out without problems.

    > - Wants to use /dev/hda9 (a non-existent ptn) for (some random Suse
    > 10.2 ptn).


    Ah, so it was going to create a new /dev/hda9 to use. After all, it
    isn't going to use a partition that either isn't there, or one that's
    not going to be created.

    > - Wants to use Xubuntu's root ptn in Suse as /usr or /boot or /home


    See above.

    >I expect "expert" means *expert*, as in, "here's what you have to work
    >with. *Don't* you dare touch any of the others, damnit!"


    Well, as houghi said, if you're going to use the expert tab, you're
    supposed to be the expert. Since you managed to install several other
    OSes on that same system, including openSUSE 10.1, and given your
    posting history, you should at least have some inkling about what you're
    doing.

    >OpenSuse 10.2 failed.


    What you mean is you failed.

    >We're abandoning Suse.


    Or you're making your user abandon SUSE because you couldn't figure out
    how to perform the install.

    >Zenwalk 4.6.1 (as an
    >example) got it all right, as does stock Debian stable. OpenSuse 10.2
    >apparently cannot be trusted in a multi-boot setting to *leave the
    >others alone, damnit.*


    I think I know exactly what's happened. If I'm right, I'll tell you
    where you went wrong below.

    >I definitely won't be back as long as this is
    >the way it behaves.


    I thought you used Debian? Why would you be back if you don't use it?

    >Back to the drawing board? I was impressed with Suse when I used it a
    >few years ago. This installer (wrt partitioning) is broken and
    >unusable in multi-boot settings.


    Given there are many people using openSUSE alongside different OSes, and
    this is the first rant I've seen, I'll assume it's more of a case of
    PEBKAC than in the partitioner.

    >Caveat emptor.


    Indeed. That is always good advice.


    Now, I did say I thought I knew what the problem was. My guess is that,
    while you're wanting to upgrade/replace 10.1 to 10.2, you selected new
    installation. If you can still be bothered, when you get to the point
    where it asked if you want a new installation or to upgrade an existing
    one, select upgrade. This way, the partitioner isn't involved and the
    partitions already used by 10.1 will be reused for 10.2.

    If you are wanting to do a fresh install of 10.2, wiping out 10.1, I'd
    use the following steps:

    1, select the new installation;
    2, choose the desktop type (KDE, Gnome, minimal graphical, or text);
    3, click partitioning either using the "link" at the top of the page, or
    using the pop-up menu on the "change" button;
    4, click the radio-button "Create Custom Partition Setup" and the next
    button;
    5, click the radio-button "Custom Partitioning (for experts)" and then
    the next button;
    6, click the "Expert" button and the select
    "Import Mount Points from Existing /etc/fstab" option;
    7, click on the "Show Next" button until the correct / partition for
    10.1 is found and then click the "Yes" button;
    8, click on the partition that will be / and then click edit;
    9, click format, changing the file system if required, and click the
    "OK" button;
    10, make any other changes as desired to mount points, then click on the
    "Accept" button;
    11, click the "Accept" button to start the installation.

    The above steps will give you a fresh install of 10.2 while preserving
    the partition layout as set up in 10.1. If you didn't reformat the
    partition assigned to /home, if there is a separate /home, the user will
    have all their personal settings carried over to the 10.2 installation.


    [0] Apart from the annoying feature that it will, if allowed, wipe out
    already installed Linux OSes[1], and Linux partitions, if there is no
    unallocated space on the hard drive[2].

    [1] Personal experience after installing several different versions,
    into different pre-existing partitions, in this sequence:

    FC5, SUSE 10.0, openSUSE 10.1, openSUSE 10.2.

    Both openSUSE 10.1 and 10.2 wanted to delete the partitions in use by
    previously installed versions to create a new / and /home partition.

    [2] Might be worth a bug report in its own right. I'll have to check
    bugzilla to see if anyone else has reported it before.

    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 100 Mnodes/s: www.distributed.net
    RISC OS 3.11 | SUSE 10.0 32bit | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit
    TOS 4.02 | SUSE 9.3 32bit | | openSUSE 10.3a6 32bit

  10. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    Lorenzo Paulatto wrote:

    >>It looked to me as if the
    >>swap partition must be "formatted" somehow, before SuSE can use it. At
    >>least it was not sufficient to set the partition type to "swap".

    >
    >
    > of course it has to be formatted (mkswap), if I remember correctly in
    > avanced mode you have to check the "format" box.


    Okay, now I remember the real problem: The installation stopped due to a
    lack of RAM, before I could format the swap partition. The preformatted
    swap partition helped to proceed past that point.

    DoDi

  11. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, David Bolt wrote:-



    I forgot to mention something about these step:

    >1, select the new installation;
    >2, choose the desktop type (KDE, Gnome, minimal graphical, or text);
    >3, click partitioning either using the "link" at the top of the page, or
    > using the pop-up menu on the "change" button;
    >4, click the radio-button "Create Custom Partition Setup" and the next
    > button;
    >5, click the radio-button "Custom Partitioning (for experts)" and then
    > the next button;
    >6, click the "Expert" button and the select
    > "Import Mount Points from Existing /etc/fstab" option;
    >7, click on the "Show Next" button until the correct / partition for
    > 10.1 is found and then click the "Yes" button;


    These steps can be used for almost any version of (open)SUSE upto and
    including 10.2.

    With the present alpha of 10.3, there may be some breakage due to the
    change to using libata. With this, /dev/hda would become /dev/sda, etc.
    and this may or may not require some re-editing of the /etc/fstab to
    work properly.


    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 100 Mnodes/s: www.distributed.net
    RISC OS 3.11 | SUSE 10.0 32bit | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit
    TOS 4.02 | SUSE 9.3 32bit | | openSUSE 10.3a6 32bit

  12. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    David Bolt wrote:
    > Now here's something you've stumbled upon that I've seen before. When I
    > installed 10.2 alongside a 10.1 install, the 10.2 installer wanted to
    > reuse the 10.1 partitions. However, using the expert mode in the
    > partitioner solved that very easily.


    Well, as far as I see, what it does is look for any free partition and
    if it can't find anytjing, it will propose the last one.

    > [0] Apart from the annoying feature that it will, if allowed, wipe out
    > already installed Linux OSes[1], and Linux partitions, if there is no
    > unallocated space on the hard drive[2].


    If allowed? That would giving responsability to the user. Clearly the OP
    could not handle that.

    > [2] Might be worth a bug report in its own right. I'll have to check
    > bugzilla to see if anyone else has reported it before.


    Well, it is still a proposal that you need to OK. It gives aple warning
    that it is going to do something that might be harmfull. If you so
    desire to ignore warnings: PEBCAK! You do not want it to end in flasng
    things, popoups and questions as 'Are you realy, realy, realy sure?' and
    then have a choice between maybe and perhaps.

    I remember having the discusion several times before and it was always
    concluded that this is the best of the 'no win' situations. You never
    can win, because some people will still want to have it differently. The
    way it is now is the best compromise. If some people do not like it,
    that is a real pity, but it is too timeconsuming to please everybody.

    There is a good reason there are many different distributions. Each one
    has its advantages over an other one and unless you make yor very own,
    none of them will completely be what YOU want it to be.

    houghi
    --
    Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done,
    and why. Then do it.
    -- Heinlein : Time Enough For Love

  13. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    David Bolt wrote:
    >>Obviously you do not understand the concept of a 'proposal'.

    >
    > Is that proposal decent or indecent? :-)


    That depends on you countries laws and your own imagination.

    houghi
    --
    Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done,
    and why. Then do it.
    -- Heinlein : Time Enough For Love

  14. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, houghi wrote:-

    >David Bolt wrote:


    >> [0] Apart from the annoying feature that it will, if allowed, wipe out
    >> already installed Linux OSes[1], and Linux partitions, if there is no
    >> unallocated space on the hard drive[2].

    >
    >If allowed? That would giving responsability to the user. Clearly the OP
    >could not handle that.


    Maybe. Could have just been one of those brain-fart moments.

    >> [2] Might be worth a bug report in its own right. I'll have to check
    >> bugzilla to see if anyone else has reported it before.

    >
    >Well, it is still a proposal that you need to OK. It gives aple warning
    >that it is going to do something that might be harmfull. If you so
    >desire to ignore warnings: PEBCAK!


    True. I know there's one huge problem that exists between my keyboard
    and my chair. So far, it's resisted all attempts to solve it as well.

    >You do not want it to end in flasng
    >things, popoups and questions as 'Are you realy, realy, realy sure?' and
    >then have a choice between maybe and perhaps.


    Oh hell no!

    >I remember having the discusion several times before and it was always
    >concluded that this is the best of the 'no win' situations.


    At the time the discussions occurred, it probably was. It might be an
    idea to revisit it again during the 10.3 cycle. I can't recall if it was
    10.0 or 10.1, but I do recall the partitioner not being able to re-size
    an ext2/3 file system. The 10.3 partitioner can do so, since during my
    "let's install several different Linux versions on a virtual machine"
    experiment, I didn't leave enough to add 10.3, and had to re-size the
    shared /home.

    In the case of my experiment, it'd probably fail to pick a suitable
    proposal since the virtual drive is only 10GB, contains a 520MB swap, a
    200MG /home, and five / partitions of about 1.9GB each.

    >You never
    >can win, because some people will still want to have it differently. The
    >way it is now is the best compromise.


    It was. It probably still is, but it might be an idea to look again and
    see if it's possible to re-size an already exiting Linux partition
    rather than just wiping them out.

    >If some people do not like it,
    >that is a real pity, but it is too timeconsuming to please everybody.


    Not to mention impossible to do.

    >There is a good reason there are many different distributions. Each one
    >has its advantages over an other one and unless you make yor very own,
    >none of them will completely be what YOU want it to be.


    Thinking about that, it's about time I had another go with 10.3 and
    rembrand/makeSUSEdvd. I'm wondering if it's possible to get the Packman
    and Guru repositories added as installation sources right at the
    beginning of the installation, rather than after the initial
    installation is complete.


    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 100 Mnodes/s: www.distributed.net
    RISC OS 3.11 | SUSE 10.0 32bit | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit
    TOS 4.02 | SUSE 9.3 32bit | | openSUSE 10.3a6 32bit

  15. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:

    > Lorenzo Paulatto wrote:
    >
    >>>It looked to me as if the
    >>>swap partition must be "formatted" somehow, before SuSE can use it. At
    >>>least it was not sufficient to set the partition type to "swap".

    >>
    >>
    >> of course it has to be formatted (mkswap), if I remember correctly in
    >> avanced mode you have to check the "format" box.

    >
    > Okay, now I remember the real problem: The installation stopped due to a
    > lack of RAM, before I could format the swap partition. The preformatted
    > swap partition helped to proceed past that point.
    >
    > DoDi


    Hi Hans-Peter,

    The RAM requirement is the problem.
    It was quite some time ago when I installed SUSE 10.1 on 128 MB machine:
    http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE_-_Te...nimal_Hardware
    and then I knew only about swap, but in the article:
    http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE/Tweaks
    we have few links to articles that have more tips that can help openSUSE
    installation on minimal hardware.

    --
    Regards,
    Rajko.

  16. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    David Bolt wrote:

    > With this, /dev/hda would become /dev/sda, etc.
    > and this may or may not require some re-editing of the /etc/fstab to
    > work properly.
    >


    The /etc/fstab and /boot/grub/device.map on target partition must be
    adjusted with or without changes in the hard disk device names. Partition
    numbers are not same in both cases.

    --
    Regards,
    Rajko.

  17. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rajko M. wrote:-

    >David Bolt wrote:
    >
    >> With this, /dev/hda would become /dev/sda, etc.
    >> and this may or may not require some re-editing of the /etc/fstab to
    >> work properly.
    >>

    >
    >The /etc/fstab and /boot/grub/device.map on target partition must be
    >adjusted


    device.map should only need changing if you're doing an upgrade. If
    you're wiping out the already existing install, everything inside /boot
    should be erased (and will be if there is no separate /boot partition).
    device.map should/would be recreated when the boot loader is installed.

    >with or without changes in the hard disk device names.


    No changes should be required if there are no alterations to the
    partition numbering.

    >Partition
    >numbers are not same in both cases.


    You've actually seen the partition numbers change? As in /dev/hda5 on
    10.2, or earlier, becomes something other than /dev/sda5 on 10.3? The
    partition numbering hasn't changed here (an example below) and so, if
    they have for you, and you've not made changes to the partition table,
    then it appears you've found a bug.


    As an example, here's the list of partitions from a system that
    triple-boots 10.1, 10.3a6 and WinXP:

    davjam@cobra-mk1:~> cat /etc/SuSE-release
    openSUSE 10.3 (i586) Alpha6
    VERSION = 10.3
    davjam@cobra-mk1:~> sudo /sbin/fdisk -l
    root's password:

    Disk /dev/sda: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
    /dev/sda1 1 383 3076416 12 Compaq diagnostics
    /dev/sda2 384 2405 16241715 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
    /dev/sda3 * 2406 9729 58830030 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
    /dev/sda5 2406 2409 32098+ 83 Linux
    /dev/sda6 2410 4427 16209553+ b W95 FAT32
    /dev/sda7 4428 4543 931738+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
    /dev/sda8 4544 5212 5373711 83 Linux
    /dev/sda9 5213 5474 2104483+ 83 Linux
    /dev/sda10 5475 5540 530113+ 83 Linux
    /dev/sda11 5541 7383 14803866 8e Linux LVM
    /dev/sda12 7384 9729 18844213+ 83 Linux

    Disk /dev/dm-0: 1933 MB, 1933574144 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 235 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table

    Disk /dev/dm-1: 1048 MB, 1048576000 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 127 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Disk /dev/dm-1 doesn't contain a valid partition table

    Disk /dev/dm-2: 9663 MB, 9663676416 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1174 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Disk /dev/dm-2 doesn't contain a valid partition table

    Disk /dev/dm-3: 943 MB, 943718400 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 114 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Disk /dev/dm-3 doesn't contain a valid partition table

    Disk /dev/dm-4: 658 MB, 658505728 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 80 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Disk /dev/dm-4 doesn't contain a valid partition table
    davjam@cobra-mk1:~>

    davjam@cobra-mk1:~> cat /etc/SuSE-release
    SUSE LINUX 10.1 (i586)
    VERSION = 10.1
    davjam@cobra-mk1:~> sudo /sbin/fdisk -l
    root's password:

    Disk /dev/hda: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
    /dev/hda1 1 383 3076416 12 Compaq diagnostics
    /dev/hda2 384 2405 16241715 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
    /dev/hda3 * 2406 9729 58830030 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
    /dev/hda5 2406 2409 32098+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda6 2410 4427 16209553+ b W95 FAT32
    /dev/hda7 4428 4543 931738+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
    /dev/hda8 4544 5212 5373711 83 Linux
    /dev/hda9 5213 5474 2104483+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda10 5475 5540 530113+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda11 5541 7383 14803866 8e Linux LVM
    /dev/hda12 7384 9729 18844213+ 83 Linux
    davjam@cobra-mk1:~>

    Apart from the /dev/dm-?, which are actually file systems within the
    LVM2 partition, and the hda/sda device names, the partition numbers are
    identical.


    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 100 Mnodes/s: www.distributed.net
    RISC OS 3.11 | SUSE 10.0 32bit | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit
    TOS 4.02 | SUSE 9.3 32bit | | openSUSE 10.3a6 32bit

  18. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    David Bolt wrote:
    >>I remember having the discusion several times before and it was always
    >>concluded that this is the best of the 'no win' situations.

    >
    > At the time the discussions occurred, it probably was. It might be an
    > idea to revisit it again during the 10.3 cycle.


    Yeah, like they did for the 120.0, 10.1 and 10.2. Perhaps you see a
    pattern here. ;-) Sure it is great to duscuss things, but perhaps this
    one should start with:
    When I have several distributions what happens is X, what I wouild like
    to happen is Y. Distribution ABC has Y happening. This is a better
    option, because ...

    Till now the disussions where: When a partition is overwritten, it
    should get a larger warning. No it should not, yes it should, no it
    should not. Ad nauseum.

    > In the case of my experiment, it'd probably fail to pick a suitable
    > proposal since the virtual drive is only 10GB, contains a 520MB swap, a
    > 200MG /home, and five / partitions of about 1.9GB each.


    I have never had a suitable proposal. I doubt that it is possible to
    bring out a distribution that can do that. Also because _I_ do not even
    have a fixed way of doing it. Or how do you program the correct one each
    and avery time:
    1) Delete all exiasting partitions and make one large one
    2) Use HDA for installation, without seperate partitions. Delete what is
    on there.
    3) Delete HDB and use the whole
    4) Use part of HDE and mount HDF partly as home
    5) Use HDA as seperate / and /home
    ....

    >>You never
    >>can win, because some people will still want to have it differently. The
    >>way it is now is the best compromise.

    >
    > It was. It probably still is, but it might be an idea to look again and
    > see if it's possible to re-size an already exiting Linux partition
    > rather than just wiping them out.


    Sure, but be clear to have an alternative before you start a discusion
    for the sake of starting a discusion.

    >>If some people do not like it,
    >>that is a real pity, but it is too timeconsuming to please everybody.

    >
    > Not to mention impossible to do.


    Well, I have heard about this women who did a realy good efford. Oh
    wait, I am awake again.

    >>There is a good reason there are many different distributions. Each one
    >>has its advantages over an other one and unless you make yor very own,
    >>none of them will completely be what YOU want it to be.

    >
    > Thinking about that, it's about time I had another go with 10.3 and
    > rembrand/makeSUSEdvd. I'm wondering if it's possible to get the Packman
    > and Guru repositories added as installation sources right at the
    > beginning of the installation, rather than after the initial
    > installation is complete.


    Sure it is. Just select them as installed instead of optional.

    houghi
    --
    Remind me to write an article on the compulsive reading of news. The
    theme will be that most neuroses can be traced to the unhealthy habit
    of wallowing in the troubles of five billion strangers. -- Heinlein

  19. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    David Bolt wrote:

    > device.map should only need changing if you're doing an upgrade. If
    > you're wiping out the already existing install,


    I was reffering to original poster intention to add new OS to existing
    multiboot system. Than you obviously use new partition and both files will
    be changed.

    As you stated earlier the OP did some mistake selecting options and run into
    problems.

    --
    Regards,
    Rajko.

  20. Re: 10.2 partitioning. Sucks!

    TW :
    > s. keeling wrote:
    >
    > > On this box, we have Xubuntu, Suse 10.1, Kanotix, Win95, and Zenwalk
    > > (all of which I built it for him). 10.2 wants to do psychotic stuff
    > > in partitoning, as in re-allocating detected filesystems. Even with

    >
    > Wow you are quite frustrated and I do understand why. Still, you've built a
    > system with lots of stuff (why install so many OS systems and not choose
    > one linux OS with a virtual environment for win95 and other linux


    It's not my box. It's his. He's new to Linux and wants to try out a
    few to see what they're like.

    > flavors?), so the partitioning becomes indeed difficult; You asked for it I
    > dare to say. OpenSuse could be certainly improved with partitioning (we had


    No, I didn't ask for it. I've been doing multi-boot installs for
    years. I've never run into an installer that won't let me choose the
    partitons that will be used and only those partitions. Until now.

    > here a pc with 2 ata disks which took a long time to tweak into an
    > multiboot system, which included many bios changes, but abandoning opensuse
    > just because of some partitioning problems is perhaps not fair to say. I'm


    If I can't even get past the partition allocation step without losing
    something I don't want to lose, it's not going to be installed. End
    of story.

    > quite pleased with the distribution of 10.2


    Good for you. In less complex environments, I've no doubt it is quite
    useful. That's not the situation here.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast