In Short. This isn't the Windows world. There is no registry, so stupid problems like what you are describing simply do not arise. Linux uses a much cleaner and simpler system, more like DOS, or Windows pre95. By using text files instead of a registry, there are several advantages. Firstly, you don't waste a TON of RAM loading crap you don't need (Like ghost reg entries from long deleted applications). Second, The config files are kept in specific places, and since they are just test files, they can be copied around at will, with no real ill effect. Thirdly, 1 broken application has no impact on other applications. Meaning, if I seriously screw something up, so that Xwindows won't load on my server, The server will still boot, the file and print application will still be running, as will the webserver. The end result is that you will most likely find that HEY, you don't even need X, why run it on the server. With Windows, if the registry has a problem, EVERY aspect of your PC has a problem. So saving one portion of the filesystem WILL allow you to successfully upgrade the machine, and the apps will all continue to work. It's not a problem...
Windows was designed originally to run on top of DOS. DOS was not meant to be used in a network, and Windows has carried this legacy. Hence the restriction of only 26 connected drives. The truth is, that with Windows 2000, M$ copied the *nix world, and now supports mountpoints too, so this restriction no longer applies. Effectively, neither has any limit on drive connections that a person is likely to hit any time soon. I'd guess at least 1024, and really, I see no reason why either OS couldn't mount 10s of thousands of partitions. Except that Windows would run out of RAM and crash eventually. Unlike Windows, Linux gets faster and more powerful with every release. Windows gets arguable more powerful, but it's definitely slower with every release. (a 486 can't physically address enough RAM to even load the Win2K kernel, for example...) On the other hand, if you run RH 8 instead of RH 7.1, it will run faster on the same hardware, and you have the advantage of having a more up to date (security wise) product. I believe the 2 TB limitation was with the 2.2 Kernel. Regardless, this won't be an issue for a home user any time soon. Personally, I'd suggest that having so many little partitions will just make things more difficult for you. It shouldn't be a problem from the OSes perspective, but I would never do it, and from the sound of others on this list, they wouldn't either. My suggestion would be to devote 1 HDD to Linux, and 1 to Doze, then let the Linux installer auto-partition the drive for you during it's install. That's a good way to start. Kev. ---- Original Message ----- From: "Stanley A. Schultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Clug Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:29 PM Subject: RE: (clug-talk) Install/Boot problem > > 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 > > >
