Jesse and All:
Thanks for all your consideration and responses.
On 26 Sep 2002, Jesse Kline wrote:
> Well considering that you don't need to backup your OS, since you can
> always reinstall it from the CD.
I've heard this argument before, and not so, mon ami. Using Window$ as a
bad example, the operating system is constantly making changes to the
registry to keep track of what the applications are doing. Many, if not
most, applications are constantly making repetitive changes to the
registry as well. Most applications load specific drivers into the
\Window$\System subdirectory as they are installed so Window$ can find
them when the application needs them to run. Many applications lodge data
and backup files into some Window$ subdirectory or another as they
function. (e.g., Netscape 6.2 stores bookmarks.html in
C:\WIN98\Mozilla\Users50\schultz\ncjou279.slt on my machine.)
It seems that the default practice is to assume only one drive (regardless
of how large or stupid) and then to install every single application and
all your data in different subdirectories on the same drive, usually in
subdirectories *UNDER* the basic directory for the operating system (e.g.,
under C:\WIN98 in my example). I have all kinds of problems (too many to
itemize here) with this philosophy and go a long way out of my way to
avoid or subvert the practice.
I don't know enough about Linux to say whether or not it does something
like this as well, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it did.
>From brutal experience I can vouch that if you don't back up your system
*REAL* often, when (not 'IF'!) your machine crashes, you could be faced
with a massive install-it-from-the-ground-up and
configure-it-from-the-ground-up project that involves the operating system
and all your applications. Depending on what your machine is like, that
could take weeks.
The major problem is that, unless you're overabundantly wealthy, you won't
be able to afford a backup medium that will hold 40 Gb of files in one
swallow. (If you are, can I get a job with you?) The best solution to
backing up your files is to partition your physical drive into small
enough chunks to allow a backup on whatever medium you can afford. (One
would hope something larger than 1.44 Mb floppies!) I have access to 1 Gb
Jaz disks, hence my preference for 1 Gb partitions, especially with the
FAT32 partitions because Window$ is so untrustworthy. I haven't had enough
experience with Linux yet to have established an operating philosophy.
> And considering that you have to have a working system in the first
> place in order to backup anything useful, maybe you should at least try
> listening to the advise of a good majority of your responders, and
> change your partitioning scheme to something more "standard".
NUMBER of PARTITIONS/DRIVES
1. In general, modern operating systems are made to deal with multiple
partitions. It's a very basic quality that's absolutely essential,
especially in this day and age when we're dealing with 40 and 80 Gb hard
drives. Window$ can handle a total of 26 (A: through Z:) drives, for
instance. Does anybody know what the limit is for Linux?
2. Specifically, my machine at home has about 20 partitions, some FAT32
and some ext2, and RHL 7.1 (from the same set of installation CDs) has no
trouble accessing any of them.
3. Before the previous 10Gb drive fried on this machine I had RHL 7.1
(same installation CDs, again) running and accessing all 12 partitions
scattered across 3 physical drives.
Conclusions:
1. The version of Linux, while not the newest or greatest, doesn't seem to
be faulty. Even then, I will consider using RHL 7.3 as soon as I can lay
my hands on a copy.
2. The number of partitions shouldn't be the problem. While I discount it
here I will keep it on file as another avenue to look into if I can't find
a better solution. (See below.)
PARTITION/DRIVE SIZE
1. Somewhere (I can't remember exactly where) I read that both Window$ 98
and Linux are capable of addressing up to 2 terabytes of disk space per
partition table. That's roughly 25 times the capacity of the whole
physical drive that I'm struggling with.
2. This whole problem began *AFTER* a 10 Gb disk crashed and I replaced it
with a 40 Gb one.
3. On my machine at home as well as the previous incarnation of this one
with a smaller disk I have/had no trouble addressing partitions up to 5
Gb.
Conclusions:
1. Partition size shouldn't be an issue.
2. The physical disk size very likely might be.
> Why don't you try letting RedHat install itself into the free space left
> on your drive. You can always resize your /home partition to make it 1
> GB, and make some more 1 GB partitions on your first and second drive
> for storage. Or you could just limit the contents of each users /home
> directory to 1 GB, and then again use the second drive for additional
> storage space if needed. I just think that since a number of people have
> said that this might be your problem, that it will be worth your while
> to at least try it in the hopes of getting a working installation.
I tried something like what you suggest. I deleted all the ext2 partitions
from the high end of the disk and moved all the FAT32 partitions (except
the primary FAT32, C:) up there. Then I expanded the extended partition to
fill the gap and created a bunch of ext2 and swap partitions in the vacant
space left in it. Then I reinstalled Linus (the 13th time!) During the
install process fdisk and Disk Druid read and manipulate all the
partitions just fine (as always!). I still get the spray of Gtk errors as
install winds down.
Now Linux boots. X Windows runs (major improvement). I still get a spray
of errors about /dev/hdaxx not being found and I can't access the 5 FAT32
partitions that are at the far end of the disk with Linux! Window$, on the
other hand, can access them just fine.
Conclusions:
1. The physical aspects of the drive are working okay.
2. DiskManager seems to be working fine, at least for Window$, probably
for Linux too.
3. Linux seems to be having trouble dealing with:
a. Partitions numbered 17 or greater, or
b. Partitions starting at cylinder #3566 or greater.
Thanks again for all your help.
Peace, health, wisdom and wealth. Live long and prosper.
Stan Schultz
Techno-Geek wannabe
Home: (403) 230-1911
Work: (403) 220-8570
FAX: (403) 270-8928
Webpage: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~schultz
