----- Original Message -----
From: "Rusty Carruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:55 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [expert] windows discovered me
> "Aric S. Bergren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > windows on my system has access to c,d,and,e drives normally, and all of
the
> > rest of my hard drive space is for linux, so i know it must be a linux
> > formated area...sectorwise, it is located between win c and the normal
win d
> > on the drive....i had to do that because of the 1024th sector thing (its
a
> > red hat 7 system and still has this limitation)...it worked fine for a
> > while, and then during the time when i was attempting to mount windows
> > drives in linux, it was detected, given a new drive letter d, and the
old d
> > and e were moved to where they are now (e and f)...also, i was only able
to
>
> strange that it should happen during mounting dos in linux.
>
> But, what does fdisk -l /dev/hda say? Are the partition types correct for
> what's actually in the partitions?
>
> Note that you can (carefully ;-) change partition types on a live
partition without
> damaging the data in them. (I've used this to keep drive letters the
same
> between a windows 98 boot and a dos 6.2 boot - but thats a different
story - the
> point being that you can change the system type of a partition without
affecting
> whats in it - just be sure you only change its type code!)
>
> > mount the old windows c and e drives for some reason...mounting d would
not
> > work, and even though according to fdisk, win d should have been hda6,
if i
> > mount that section with an auto format option, it works but is not the
right
> > partition (i see the kernal in there, etc)....i wonder if this has
anything
>
> again, this is weird. What happens if you specify the filesystem type on
> your mount? (And, btw, where are you tryin to mount these things?)
>
> > to do with it.....if i was able to put linux after windows on the drive
and
> > just put the /boot partition before 1023 i wonder if all of the drives
would
> > be mountable and maybe windows wouldn't see linux...otherwise, is there
a
>
> I doubt this would help...
>
> > way to add mandrake 7.2's version of lilo (which does not need to have
the
> > /boot dir before 1024) to a red hat system
>
> Sorry, I cannot help you there. Anyone else?
>
> > (which seems to be more stable
> > than mandrake on this particular system..........
>
> I wonder if the 'hard disk optimizations' problems others have mentioned
> here on the list may have something to do with your evaluation that
> M7.2 is less stable than M7.1? What makes you say its less stable?
>
> > am i making any sense at all
>
> I *think* I understood you - but thats no guarantee! ;-)
>
> > or should i relax for a while and just have many beers?
>
> Relax, have a few, but don't drive! ;-)
>
> Just kidding. I'm curious to see the output of your fdisk -l and what's
in
> your /etc/fstab (sorry, forgot to mention that before ;-)
>
> rc
>
>
> Rusty Carruth Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Voice: (480) 345-3621 SnailMail: Schlumberger ATE
> FAX: (480) 345-8793 7855 S. River Parkway, Suite 116
> Ham: N7IKQ @ 146.82+,pl 162.2 Tempe, AZ 85284-1825
>
