Printable View
Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
homestead, I'd like to save some time.
BTW: different hardware, different package requirements (three PCs are
the kids machines (read games, games, and more games).
TIA
Thomas
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:53:25 -0700, RoyalHeart wrote:
[color=blue]
> Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
> user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
> formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
> homestead, I'd like to save some time.
>
> BTW: different hardware, different package requirements (three PCs are
> the kids machines (read games, games, and more games).
>
> TIA
>
> Thomas[/color]
FWIW, it may be the long way around, but I've always believed a fresh
install is the safest way to go.
RoyalHeart wrote:
[color=blue]
> Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
> user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
> formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
> homestead, I'd like to save some time.[/color]
Do a fresh install, this is the safest *and* fastest way.
A tipp: Create a spare partition for the home directories and install the OS
on the resting one. Thus your data won't be affected.
--
Cheerz Lars
RoyalHeart wrote:[color=blue]
> Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
> user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
> formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
> homestead, I'd like to save some time.
>
> BTW: different hardware, different package requirements (three PCs are
> the kids machines (read games, games, and more games).[/color]
AFAIK, 10.1 to 10.3 isn't even supported; only 10.2 to 10.3. But even
then, I prefer clean install since backing up user-data isn't difficult
(cd /; tar -cvf /mnt/myExternalUSBDrive/home.tar /home).
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:[color=blue]
> AFAIK, 10.1 to 10.3 isn't even supported; only 10.2 to 10.3. But even
> then, I prefer clean install since backing up user-data isn't difficult
> (cd /; tar -cvf /mnt/myExternalUSBDrive/home.tar /home).[/color]
The fastest way would be the following (as you shoudl already HAVE a
backup)
During the instalation select the partitions to install to. Select the
old swap als swap. Select the old / as / and format it. Select the old
/home as /home and DO NOT format that. Resume the installation.
What I do is have two / available. The current and the old one. That way
I canalways go back to the previous version if needed as well as have
the old /etc and other files available.
--
houghi [url]http://www.houghi.org[/url]
My experience with SuSE Linux 9.1
[color=blue]
> The businessworld is like prison and M$ made everybody their bitch.[/color]
On 2008-04-03 14:57, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:[color=blue]
> RoyalHeart wrote:[color=green]
>> Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
>> user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
>> formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
>> homestead, I'd like to save some time.
>>
>> BTW: different hardware, different package requirements (three PCs are
>> the kids machines (read games, games, and more games).[/color]
>
> AFAIK, 10.1 to 10.3 isn't even supported; only 10.2 to 10.3. But even
> then, I prefer clean install since backing up user-data isn't difficult
> (cd /; tar -cvf /mnt/myExternalUSBDrive/home.tar /home).[/color]
Suse 10.3 can be extra problematic since they now map all disks as
scsi devices. One of my machines has 2 sata disks and one ide, as
/dev/sda, /dev/sdb, /dev/hda
when I upgraded to 10.3 on that machine the old /dev/hda became /dev/sda and
moved the other 2 and messed up the grub install so I had to save the machine
by hand using the rescue boot and hand edit the grub files, since yast could
not fix it with repair :-/
/bb
houghi wrote:[color=blue]
> What I do is have two / available. The current and the old one. That way
> I canalways go back to the previous version if needed as well as have
> the old /etc and other files available.[/color]
You have two / available? :S
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:52:36 +0200, birre wrote:
[color=blue]
> Suse 10.3 can be extra problematic since they now map all disks as scsi
> devices.[/color]
Or, to put it slightly differently (and possibly more correctly) all
drives now use libata, with libpata being deprecated.
[color=blue]
> One of my machines has 2 sata disks and one ide, as /dev/sda,
> /dev/sdb, /dev/hda[/color]
You'll find that SATA disks *are* IDE disks. Look underneath and you'll
see the "integrated drive electronics".
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:[color=blue]
> houghi wrote:[color=green]
>> What I do is have two / available. The current and the old one. That way
>> I canalways go back to the previous version if needed as well as have
>> the old /etc and other files available.[/color]
>
> You have two / available? :S[/color]
Yes. Depending on which one I boot.
houghi
--
Quote correct (NL) [url]http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/[/url]
Zitiere richtig (DE) [url]http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren[/url]
Quote correctly (EN) [url]http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html[/url]
marksouth wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> One of my machines has 2 sata disks and one ide, as /dev/sda,
>> /dev/sdb, /dev/hda[/color]
>
> You'll find that SATA disks *are* IDE disks. Look underneath and you'll
> see the "integrated drive electronics".[/color]
Exept for the IDE drives that are on an extra IDE card. So my hda
became sda and hde became hda.
All been discussed a bit before.
houghi
--
Quote correct (NL) [url]http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/[/url]
Zitiere richtig (DE) [url]http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren[/url]
Quote correctly (EN) [url]http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html[/url]
houghi wrote:[color=blue]
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:[color=green]
>> houghi wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> What I do is have two / available. The current and the old one. That way
>>> I canalways go back to the previous version if needed as well as have
>>> the old /etc and other files available.[/color]
>> You have two / available? :S[/color]
>
> Yes. Depending on which one I boot.[/color]
You could have said "dual boot" right away, cause I was wondering if I'm
missing something important here xD
On 2008-04-03 20:16, marksouth wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:52:36 +0200, birre wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Suse 10.3 can be extra problematic since they now map all disks as scsi
>> devices.[/color]
>
> Or, to put it slightly differently (and possibly more correctly) all
> drives now use libata, with libpata being deprecated.
>[color=green]
>> One of my machines has 2 sata disks and one ide, as /dev/sda,
>> /dev/sdb, /dev/hda[/color]
>
> You'll find that SATA disks *are* IDE disks. Look underneath and you'll
> see the "integrated drive electronics".[/color]
I did not go that deep, when I was writing "as scsi devices" I was refering
to the use of /dev/sd* devices.
$> whatis sd
sd (4) - Driver for SCSI Disk Drives
Not the internal transport layer or ship , that is way to complicated
for me even if I was a hardware designer very long time ago and
built my first computer by hand, the time where a floppy drive was
delivered with a big book, describing all the functions and how to
design the interface for it. Now they refuse to tell the customer how
it works and has replaced all information with a windows driver CD.
/bb
On 2008-04-04 10:29, birre wrote:
[color=blue]
> Now they refuse to tell the customer how
> it works and has replaced all information with a windows driver CD.
>
> /bb[/color]
Hmm, it was looking strange even for me when I read my own post :-)
I don't mean storage here, they are still using known interfaces,
in most cases, but other needed hardware as usb cams and stuff.
/bb
RoyalHeart wrote:[color=blue]
> Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
> user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
> formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
> homestead, I'd like to save some time.
>[/color]
A fresh install is *much* quicker. During an upgrade, the old packages
need to be deleted first, which adds a lot of overhead to the upgrade
process.
Albert
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Albert Koelmans wrote:-
[color=blue]
>RoyalHeart wrote:[color=green]
>> Which is better overall? Perform an update of 10.1 to 10.3, or (backup
>> user data, etc. then) format and reinstall? I'm leaning toward the
>> formatting, but as I have to do this on multiple machines here at the
>> homestead, I'd like to save some time.
>>[/color]
>
>A fresh install is *much* quicker. During an upgrade, the old packages
>need to be deleted first, which adds a lot of overhead to the upgrade
>process.[/color]
Unless you're going to perform an upgrade with a version jump like this
purely because you want to see if it's possible, maybe to document all
the fun and games that you had to handle to make it work successfully
afterwards, and you can handle the inevitable problems you're going to
run into, I'd also recommend a fresh install.
Having performed three similar upgrades[0] I know that it can be quite
easy to do, once you know what to expect. With luck, when I go through
this process again once 11.0 is released[1], it should go even more
smoothly than the previous version jumps.
[0] First was a 10.0 to 10.3 upgrade, followed by a 9.3 to 10.3 upgrade,
and finally another 10.0 to 10.3 upgrade.
[1] As with the 9.3/10.0 to 10.3 upgrade, I'm going to have to contend
with the hd? -> sd? changes :|
Regards,
David Bolt
--
[url]www.davjam.org/lifetype/[/url] [url]www.distributed.net:[/url] OGR@100Mnodes, RC5-72@15Mkeys
SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit | openSUSE 10.3 32bit | openSUSE 11.0a1
SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit | openSUSE 10.3 64bit
RISC OS 3.6 | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 10.3 PPC |RISC OS 3.11