I am trying to understand the principles involved in getting multiple OSes to be compatible before proceding with partitioning a new hard drive and adding LINUX and a boot manager. To do this in the best possible way, I e-mailed the following questions to a number of individuals who had posted on this topic in the OS2USERS and UNIOXFORUM fora. Since the responses are interesting and others might enjoy reviewing them and adding comments, I have uploaded them in this file to these two fora. The six questions I asked are listed below and the individual responses follow. Since I was the only person who saw all responses, the writers were not in a position to comment on each others comments. Note that some responders were unfamiliar with LINUX. Since System Commander and Partition Magic, 2 utilities that are commonly used in complicated setups, have compuserve presences (103425,1241 and 74601,354 respectively), I have also sent these summaries tothem and asked them to respond to the two fora threads (Title: "MultipleOSes Setup!") posted in Section 16 (LINUX SYSTEM) section in UNIXFORUM and Section 3,(OS/2 & Hardware) in the OS2USERS Forum. In addition, I am including as an appendix several posts on the UNIXFORUM on similar subjects. Steve Questions: (1) There are four boot managers available to me: Three as part of an OS- DOS with a multiboot config.sys OS/2 boot manager LILO One commercial product (which I have purchased but not installed yet)- System Commander The best choices appear to be System Commander, OS/2 Boot Manager and LILO; I am planning to go with System Commander unless there are advantages to one of the other two... (2) I imagine that one might want to have separate partitions for each OS to avoid inadvertent corruption of one OS by another. Are there any circumstances where one might need to work on one OS using another OS or is the basic principle to have emergency OS boot capability via diskettes, CDROM or tape to handle any OS problems? (3) Maximum access to data files (from all possible OSes and all possible locations) would seem a reasonable principle, yes? Linux and OS2 apps can read data files on FAT, HPFS or ext2fs partitions as long as they can interpret the specific application format in which the FILE was saved and in the case of OS/2, the ext2fs for OS2 utility is available and the OS/2 OS is NOT on a primary partition, yes or no? (4) Can apps in DOS sessions under OS2 also read data files on ext2fs partitions if they can handle the FILE format in which the datafile is saved and the OS/2 setup includes the ext2fs for OS2 utility? (5) What advantages are there to creating multiple primary partitions on hard drives rather than using extended drives and a single primary/hard drive, assuming that each hard drive MUST have at least one primary partition? (6) I believe OS/2 and LINUX swap files will work best when placed on native file system partitions, yes? Implications of above: If the above are true, then the major issues in defining the type and size of partitionsd are leaving enough fat for DOS install (including System Commander files, if I use it) and then having specific partitions to separate each OS and a partition for application programs separate from OSes or data files. This may be accomplished by (1) an OS/2 Boot Manager partition or placing the boot manager in the 1st FAT partition (System Commander, LILO) with DOS, and (2) having separate extended partitions for each other OS (OS/2, LINUX, etc) and separate HPFS and ext2fs partitions for OS/2 and LINUX apps respectively and either separate HPFS and ext2fs partitions for data files or just ext2fs partitions that won't be viewed from "real" DOS. Assuming separate partitions for the OS/2 and Linux swap files, we would have something like HD#1: (730 MEGS) HD#2: (1.6 Gigs) (OS/2 Boot Manager partition)- 1 meg C: FAT 200 megs (primary) *D: FAT 300 megs Backup1(primary) DOS, System Commander (?or LILO) FAT Data files E: HPFS - 200 megs (extended) G: HPFS 100 megs OS2 SWAP OS/2 WARP WFWG3.11 F: HPFS - 300 megs (extended) H: EXT2FS 400 megs Program files for DOS, WIN LINUX OS OS/2 I:EXT2FS100 megs LINUX SWAP **J: EXT2FS 300 megs Data files **K: HPFS 500 megs Data files * A common lowest common denominator to back up important files from any source. **or one partition depending on the ability of OS/2 and Linux to effectively share datafiles of one or the other file system formats. This approach ignores accomodations for WIN NT or WIN9x. I am assuming WIN NT can use HPFS and possibly will learn to use ext2fs. I am not interested in WIN9x. RESPONSES: #: 417 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 29-Jul-96 17:23 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS2 Fm: Paul [70152,52] Steve - Just a couple of comments: (1) I'm running OS/2 Boot Manager with Linux quite successfully. I have two bootable OS/2 partitions, one running Warp and the other running 2.1. The main advantage of that is that I can use the 2.1 partition to maintain the Warp partition when it starts misbehaving (which it sometimes does). With Linux, booting from diskette and getting access to all your filesystems isn't quite such a pain; you just mount them once you've gotten your system started. Generally I keep my private data (data that wasn't part of the standard installation) in a separate partition. That way, if I have to reinstall an OS, I don't have to worry quite so much about how to coordinate the new stuff with the stuff that has to be saved. I've been storing some Linux data on a FAT partition, mainly so that I can also access it from OS/2. I haven't used the OS/2 ext2fs IFS driver, but I have accessed an OS/2 HPFS partition read-only from Linux. Hope this is useful. Paul #: 419 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 29-Jul-96 22:55 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS/2 Fm: R J Martino [72210,3170] Steve, Well I got your mail and as there was a lot in there, I will take it in small bytes . > (1) The best choices appear to be System Commander, > OS/2 Boot Manager and LILO; planning to go with > System Commander unless there are > advantages to using one of the other two... I have System Commander also, and use it on one of my home boxes, but I think that Boot Manager is a more robust implementation. BM resides in it's own partition, whereas SysCmdr lives on the first primary partition, which must be DOS FAT. FWIW I always install BM at the end of the drive rather than at the start. This sort of keeps it out of the way of things that like to play with sector 0. This might be a problem with EIDE drives > 1024 cylinders tho. > (2) I imagine that one might want to have > separate partitions for each OS I always think that this is better and safer. > Are there any circumstances where one might > need to work on one OS using another OS Yes. It's a whole lot easier to boot from the hard drive than fumbling around with floppies. As you noted, you can read and write FAT from OS/2 and linux. You can read HPFS from linux and vice versa. Any spare partition can be made to boot OS/2 with the EWS utility BOOTHS2. IOW a FAT partition can hold apps and data for DOS/Win/OS2 or whatever and still be a bootable maintenance partition. > (4) Can apps in DOS sessions under OS2 also > read data files on ext2fs I don't remember if the ext2 IFS driver allows this. I will check when I can, or you can post to OS2USER. > (5) What advantages are there to creating > multiple primary partitions on hard drives The advantages I can think of would be: a- if you wanted to have something invisible to something else b- if an OS required a primary partition > assuming that each hard drive MUST have > at least one primary partition? Only the first drive must have a primary partition. All others need only have extended partitions and logical drives. This is the way I usually set up my drives. The drive letters don't change that way. > (6) I believe OS/2 and LINUX swap files will work > best when placed on native file system partitions, yes? I think that is probably true for OS/2, at least that is what I have always done. The swap partition for linux is just that, a partition and not a file. It lives on a partition with a different type ID than ext2, is not readable by the OS, and is not usable for anything else. OS/2 uses a paging file that grows and shrinks as needed. It doesn't need it's own partition, just start it at 20-30 megs or so on an HPFS partition. > This may be accomplished by (1) an OS/2 Boot Manager partition or > placing the boot manager in the 1st FAT partition (System > Commander, LILO) with DOS, and (2) having separate extended > partitions for each other OS (OS/2, LINUX, etc) and separate HPFS > and ext2fs partitions for OS/2 and LINUX apps respectively and > either separate HPFS and ext2fs partitions for data files or just > ext2fs partitions that won't be viewed from "real" DOS. Assuming > separate partitions for the OS/2 and Linux swap files, we would > have something like If you are thinking of NT in the future, as you mention, then you might want 2 primary C partitions on the first drive. DOS/Win requires one of course, and NT needs access to the C drive for it's loader. It will mess with the boot sector of the C drive during the install no matter where you install it. The NT loader will however accept a second C partition controlled by BM, and that will allow you to keep a clean copy of Win3.1 and a clean copy of NT separate from each other. They can share any FAT partitions for data and apps. OS/2 and linux can be self contained on extended partitions, and be happy on any physical drive. Install LILO to the superblock of the root ext2 partition, and add it to the BM menu. They can both also share the FAT partitions for data and apps. Note that NT can see HPFS partitions up to v3.51. Bill has decided to drop this from v4. Also, as he has not allowed the release of the specs for NTFS, no one can write an IFS driver, so linux and OS/2 can not see NTFS partitions. BM will boot all this directly with only minor problems caused by the installation routines of NT (or W95). If you are going to be using OS/2, I would go with BM. I think that as it resides on a separate primary partition, it is inherently more stable that SysCmdr. If fact if IBM could work out the details, they could sell it as a stand alone utility. So what do we have then? BM on the first HD, end-of-file-space if possible, with 2 primary partitions for DOS and NT. The rest of the space, if any, should be extended. It depends on how you want to size the OS partitions. Making another primary would not do anything for you, but you could squeeze in OS/2 on an extended partition. The second HD can have a primary or not, depending on how you want the letters to come out. As a rule of thumb, linux partitions, for data and swap, should be at the end of the drive. The partitions will not be assigned letters by any OS, and it is a good idea to keep them out of the way of the OSes that use letters. By keeping NT on the second primary you get the best of the available options. NT doesn't like to play with the other children and won't let the other children play with it's toys. When NT is booted you would loose access to the DOS partition, but then you keep NT from messing about with Win 3.1. When DOS is booted you only loose access to NT, which no one else can read anyway. Access to all the other partitions is dependant on the OSes themselves, not the way you have partitioned the drives. Rick 22:55 29-Jul-96 #: 610123 S0/Outbox File 30-Jul-96 8:43:00 Sb: LINUX and OS/2 Fm: MAIL To: R J Martino [72210,3170] That was a lot to chew on, and made me even more aware of my lack of actual experience in handling multiple independent OSes and multiple hard drive setups. One question for now: You mention adding a second C: primary partition to accomodate NT. I am not planning on installing NT until I have digested (or given up LINUX). My current first hard drive is likely to become my second hard drive after I have setup the new (and currently second) hard drive. Thus, I am loath to transform this one unnecessarily. I hope to have the second hard drive configured with enough room to split partitions later to accomodate NT in its first partition if necessary. According to the System Commander manual I could just install NT's OS loader code in a C: partition and the OS can be placed in any partition. What is the advantage of using a second C: primary partition for NT on the first hard drive? If I have NT OS and data files in HPFS extended partitions, I would have a more efficient setup than DOS and the OS would still be invisible to DOS, yes? Am I missing something here? I will undoubtedly have more questions for you as I go along, if you don't mind; you are a real fount of knowledge. Steve BTW, I have sent this message to several other people who have posted on the UNIXFORUM or OS2USERS forum on this subject. I guess it would be nice to have these responses available to each respondent and anyone else interested in this subject. Since there isn't a section devoted to multiOS questions (pity), maybe I will upload everybody's responses to the OS2USERS and UNIXFORUM libraries. What do you think? #: 420 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 30-Jul-96 03:19 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS2 Fm: Ron Higgin [71154,2043] > planning to go with System Commander A good choice. > I imagine that one might want to have separate partitions for each > OS to avoid inadvertent corruption of one OS by another. Are there > any circumstances where one might need to work on one OS using > another OS Yes. I maintain a self contained bootable recovery (OS/2) system for this purpose. I use this to make changes to my other OS/2 systems (installed in extended HPFS partitions), and occasionally to a single DOS partition I maintain (principally for software compatibility testing). The key to using multiple systems is to fully understand the rules concerning operating system residency, supported file systems, and data compatibility. The basic rules are as follows: 1. DOS only supports the FAT file system and MUST be booted from a PRIMARY partition residing on the FIRST physical hard disk. DOS can access other primary partitions (on other than the first physical disk) OR extended logical drives (residing on any physical drive) providing those partitions are formatted for the FAT file system. DOS does NOT recognize and cannot access data residing on partitions formatted for other than the FAT file system. 2. OS/2 supports both the FAT and HPFS file systems. OS/2 itself can be installed on ANY partition (residing on ANY physical disk) accessible to the system or hard disk controller BIOS (for the purpose of booting) providing that Boot Manager (or an equivalent multisystem boot facility) is installed on the FIRST physical disk. OS/2 can be installed on a partition formatted for either the FAT or HPFS file systems. OS/2 can also be installed (space permitting) such that it shares a pre-existing DOS primary partition. In this case Boot Manager is NOT required to switch between OS/2 and DOS, but the shared partition must of course be formatted for the FAT file system. 3. Linux has its own private partition type. It can be initially defined as either a primary or extended partition but once formatted it cannot be accessed by either DOS or OS/2, and I don't believe either system will even recognize the existence of the a Linux partition. I am not sure whether or not Linux is capable of accessing HPFS formatted partitions but I'm pretty sure it can access FAT formatted ones. > Maximum access to data files (from all possible OSes and all > possible locations) would seem a reasonable principle, yes? In principal .. YES. However, one has to be VERY careful when accessing the same partition from multiple types of operating systems. For example, OS/2 regularly attaches extended attribute (EA) data to files and directories residing on FAT (as well as HPFS) partitions which can be easily destroyed or corrupted by DOS and Windows programs running under either native DOS or OS/2 (in DOS sessions). The same is true for Win95. In general sharing partitions between multiple dissimilar operating systems is NOT a good idea. > Linux and OS2 apps can read data files on FAT, HPFS or ext2fs > partitions as long as they can interpret the specific application > format in which the FILE was saved and in the case of OS/2, the > ext2fs for OS2 utility is available and the OS/2 OS is NOT on a > primary partition, yes or no? I have to admit you've kind of lost me here. I believe I've already answered the intent of this question. I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive answer with regard to "ext2fs" as I am not familiar with it. > Can apps in DOS sessions under OS2 also read data files on ext2fs > partitions if they can handle the FILE format in which the > datafile is saved and the OS/2 setup includes the ext2fs for OS2 > utility? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. As I understand it, OS/2 cannot access Linux-type partitions. > What advantages are there to creating multiple primary partitions > on hard drives rather than using extended drives and a single > primary/hard drive, assuming that each hard drive MUST have at > least one primary partition? First off, hard drives (other than the first) do NOT have to contain any primary partitions. The principal advantage of multiple primaries is that they completely isolate each system from the other. Since only one primary (per physical disk) can be active, all primaries other than the active one are invisible (inaccessible) to the operating system booted from the active primary partition. The only other potential advantage multiple primaries offer is the ability to keep drive letter mappings consistent regardless of which system is booted. For example, if DOS and OS/2 are each installed in their own primary partitions (on the same physical disk), then the boot partition drive letter will be identical (in this case, "C") regardless of which system is booted. > I believe OS/2 and LINUX swap files will work best when placed on > native file system partitions, yes? That is correct. > I am assuming WIN NT can use HPFS Bad assumption. The current version (3) of WinNT CAN access HPFS partitions. However, the next version (4) of WinNT CANNOT access them. Ron Higgin [OS/2 Advisor] #: 610138 S0/Outbox File 30-Jul-96 8:58:00 Sb: LINUX and OS2 Fm: MAIL To: Ron Higgin [71154,2043] Thanks a lot Ron. I am beginning to comprehend the notion that primary partitions may be valuable to avoid confounding of drive letter assignments, if it is possible to have each OS in its own C: partition. Some OSes-like LINUX- do not consider the drive letter and this is not an issue for their placement. If OS/2 and NT are placed in logical partitions after any FAT partitions and only one primary partition is employed, will changes in drive letters occur with shifts in the active OS? I have sent this same "posting" to several people who have posted messages on this subject on the OS2USERS and UNIXFORUM. I plan to collect all the responses (and responses to the responses and...) and upload them to these fora, since there is no section devoted to discussion of multiOS systems. Thanks again Steve #: 423 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 30-Jul-96 22:09 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS/2 Fm: R J Martino [72210,3170] Steve, > According to the System Commander manual I could > just install NT's OS loader code in a C: partition > and the OS can be placed in any partition. This is true, but then you will have the NT loader booting that C partition. I just prefer to keep it a self contained install. > What is the advantage of using a second C: primary > partition for NT on the first hard drive? > If I have NT OS and data files in HPFS extended partitions, I > would have a more efficient setup than DOS and the OS would still > be invisible to DOS, Well a second C can only be on the first drive, if that was your question. All I was trying to say tho was that installing NT, if you are going to use it on a trial basis, on a second C is what I would do to keep it from messing about with a primary C that I didn't want messed about with. NT will I think, only install to FAT or NTFS. As I mentioned last time, Bill has dropped HPFS support for NT in the next release. FAT is inefficient and nothing can read NTFS but NT. Yes I think that discussions such as this are better held in the common msg areas. There is always the chance that something we might overlook may be noticed by someone else. Rick 22:10 30-Jul-96 #: 426 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 31-Jul-96 02:31 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS2 Fm: Ron Higgin [71154,2043] > If OS/2 and NT are placed in logical partitions after any FAT > partitions and only one primary partition is employed, will > changes in drive letters occur with shifts in the active OS? Depends on which version of NT you use. For NT V3 the drive letters should remain constant, but for NT V4 they will change since NT V4 doesn't recognize HPFS partitions whereas NT V3 does. Ron Higgin [OS/2 Advisor] #: 427 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 31-Jul-96 14:32 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS/2 Fm: Richard Singer [76370,164] You seem to have most of the concepts down pretty well. Not having used System Commander before, I can't comment on it, but I have heard good things about it. If you are just using OS/2, DOS and Linux, you don't really need it, but since you have it already, use it. Recently I added a third hard drive (Merlin beta needs 300 Mb or so, I was getting a bit tight on Linux and OS/2 space, and my FAT was Stacked), at which time I added a primary partition for Win95. Boot diskettes are a necessity in my opinion, but being able to boot to another partition is quicker. For OS/2 you can use the BOOTOS2 utility to add a minimal boot capability to any partition, for instance one of your data or program drives. I believe there are similar utilities for making Linux boot diskettes. On your #3 point, I don;t think it makes a difference about OS/2 being in a primary partition or not, unless you are thinking about it not being able to see another primary partition. Linux can see any partition, even multiple primary partitions. I have not used the OS/2 ext2fs utility for a while, and when I did use it, it would only read and not write to the ext2fs partitions. That has been changed, I believe, but I don't know how stable or bulletproof it is at this time. Use caution if you have valuable information at stake. You should be able to use DOS apps without trouble, though remember that OS/2 DOS support does no long name changing, the files are just invisible to DOS.. You do not need to have any primary partiton other than the extended partition on your second drive. Both my second and my third hard drive do not have any primary partitions, just the extended partitoon with several logical drives. The Linux swap file works best in a separate partition, which does not have a file system. You set it up with the Linux fdisk,, and designate it as type 83. A good size for it is twice your system memory, though if you have space to spare, larger is good. As for NT, I haven't had to deal with it yet. However, I have heard that the new 4.0 version has dropped HPFS support. Whether anyone is working on Linux support for the NT file system, or whether anyone could add ext2fs support to NT, I don't have any idea. A couple of comments on your proposed layout. One is about the two FAT partition sizes. If you go over 255 Mb, the cluster size becomes 8 Kb, which starts to waste space for small files. Consider making the two partitions 250 Mb each. The other is your choice of installing WfWG on an HPFS drive. This is possible, but there may be occasions when you might want to able to check if something works under plain DOS and Windows, so you might want to put it on one of your FAT drives. Things are busy right now for me, as I just got back from a vacation, I have end of month reports to do, and we are moving our business in two weeks, so I might not get back to you quickly if you reply. However, if your are patient, I will respond. Good luck with your rearrangement. Oh, one very useful utility if you start living with that many partitions is Partition Magic.. Works as advertisied, and is great for adjustment of parititon sizes. Distribution: To: stephen s rinsler > [70353,714] #: 430 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] 31-Jul-96 18:19 EDT Sb: LINUX and OS2 Fm: Kelley Cook [74171,704] > I am trying to understand the principles involved in getting > multiple OSes > to be compatible before proceding with partitioning a new hard > drive and adding LINUX and a boot manager. I unfortunately have only played around with Linux and therefore am not the person to ask, but I'll try somethings. After much agony, Trevor Hemsley (75704,2477) has Linux, OS/2, and NT on his system so he probably can help you more. > The best choices appear to be System Commander, OS/2 Boot > Manager and LILO; planning to go with System Commander unless there are > advantages to using one of the other two... As far as I know, you should either use System Commander by itself OR Boot Manager and LILO combined. I don't think that you need BM or LILO with S.C. > (2) I imagine that one might want to have separate partitions for > each OS to avoid inadvertent corruption of one OS by another. Are there > any circumstances where one might need to work on one OS using another > OS or is the basic principle to have emergency OS boot capability via > diskettes, CDROM or tape to handle any OS problems? Linux will see all partitions on the computer (unless you don't install the HPFS linux driver). Unlike OS/2 and Windows, Linux sees all Primary partitions. OS/2 will see the DOS partition -- unless you put OS/2 and DOS each into there own primary partition. > Linux and OS2 apps can read data files on FAT, HPFS or ext2fs > partitions as long as they can interpret the specific application format in > which the FILE was saved and in the case of OS/2, the ext2fs for OS2 >utility is available and the OS/2 OS is NOT on a primary partition, yes >or no? Correct. Is there a ext2fs utility for OS/2? (or were you asking me that) > (4) Can apps in DOS sessions under OS2 also read data files on > ext2fs partitions if they can handle the FILE format in which the > datafile is saved and the OS/2 setup includes the ext2fs for OS2 utility? DOS apps running under OS/2 do not care about the underlying file structure as long as they conform to 8.3. > (5) What advantages are there to creating multiple primary > partitions on hard drives rather than using extended drives and a single > primary/hard drive, assuming that each hard drive MUST have at least one > primary partition? As stated above DOS & OS/2 will only see the active primary partition. It is useful for hiding data from the other operating system. Limitations: without System commander, you only can have four partitions per drive. BM takes one, each Primary partition takes one, and all the extended partitions combined take one. > (6) I believe OS/2 and LINUX swap files will work best when placed > on native file system partitions, yes? Don't know about Linux at all. The OS/2 swapper works much better in HPFS than in FAT because HPFS is faster than FAT. Have no idea about on a ext2fs partition (as I said I didn't know there was an IFS driver for it) > Assuming separate partitions for the OS/2 and Linux swap files, we would have > something like ... Drive partitions Look Pretty Good to me although I would put your proposed K: drive in the H: position if OS/2 is unable to read ext2fs. This would eliminate the swapping of drive letters for that drive when going from OS/2 to Linux. > This approach ignores accomodations for WIN NT or WIN9x. I am > assuming WIN NT can use HPFS A questionable assumption since the current betas of NT 4 do not come with the HPFS driver. This is probably the best I can do, not being a Linux user. - Kelley Cook P.S. - One of these days I am going to have buy the $25 Linux CD from Walnut Creek and install it on my computer. I kind of liked Unix from my Sun Workstation days in college. #: 612904 S0/Outbox File 1-Aug-96 7:04:00 Sb: LINUX and OS2 Fm: MAIL To: Kelley Cook [74171,704] Thanks for comments. I didn't know that Trevor had a multiOS install or I would have included him on the original mailing of my question. For everyone's benefit/enjoyment, I will post the aggregated response on the OS2USER and UNIXFORUM fora. FYI, yes there is an ext2fs for OS/2 utility. I downloaded version 0.9 which according to its author is now NON beta in spite of the version number. When I mentioned the alternatives boot managers, I meant an exclusive or, that is if using System Commander then you would need this setup, but if using Boot Manager you would have this other setup. Didn't mean one would have both, but System Commander's manual discusses several scenarios where it works with a specific OS boot loader (NT, LINUX) so I guess there are different ways of doing this, although not necessarily involving multiple boot managing partitions. Steve This is my addon which includes posts on this general subject from the UNIXFORUM. Steve #: 281694 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 16-Jul-96 04:24:18 Sb: #OS/2 Boot manager Fm: JIM HOLMES 101561,2536 To: All Hi I am currently setting up a multiple OS system with the following: Windows Linux Netware4.1 OS/2 Warp Im using the OS/2 boot manager as follows /dev/hda1 .... Windows /dev/hda2 .... Netware 4.1 /dev/hda3 .... OS/2 Warp /dev/hdb1 .... Application partition /dev/hdb2 .... Linux kernel ver 1.2.1 /dev/hdb3 .... Linux swap space. Everything seems to be o.k. except I cant get Linux to boot using the OS/2 boot manager. Previously I had Windows and Linux installed using LILO. Is there anyway to boot the Linux kernel using OS/2 boot manager or will I just have to resort to a boot disk for the Linux kernel. Many thanks Jim. There is 1 Reply. #: 281700 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 16-Jul-96 08:21:23 Sb: #281694-OS/2 Boot manager Fm: Walter Sartory 72650,152 To: JIM HOLMES 101561,2536 >Hi > >I am currently setting up a multiple OS system with the >following: > >Windows >Linux >Netware4.1 >OS/2 Warp > >Im using the OS/2 boot manager as follows > >/dev/hda1 .... Windows >/dev/hda2 .... Netware 4.1 >/dev/hda3 .... OS/2 Warp > >/dev/hdb1 .... Application partition >/dev/hdb2 .... Linux kernel ver 1.2.1 >/dev/hdb3 .... Linux swap space. > >Everything seems to be o.k. except I cant get Linux to >boot using the OS/2 boot manager. Previously I had >Windows and Linux installed using LILO. Is there anyway >to boot the Linux kernel using OS/2 boot manager or will >I just have to resort to a boot disk for the Linux >kernel. > >Many thanks > Jim. You need to install LILO on /dev/hdb2 if you have not already done so. Walt -Walter Sartory #: 281774 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 17-Jul-96 08:15:34 Sb: #281694-#OS/2 Boot manager Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: JIM HOLMES 101561,2536 (X) >>.. Is there anyway to boot the Linux kernel using OS/2 boot manager or will I just have to resort to a boot disk for the Linux kernel..<< It should work. What you may have to do is set up the partitions using OS2 fdisk, then boot Linux with a floppy and use the Linux fdisk program to retag the partitions Linux native (type 83) and Linux swap (type 82). Reformat the partitions under Linux during setup and _install Lilo in the superblock of the root Linux partiton_ (not the master boot record). You have to add Linux to the OS2 boot manager, which should afterwards transfer the boot to Lilo whenever you select it. It works for me anyway, whether Linux is installed on /dev/hda or any drive up to /dev/hda4. Tony There is 1 Reply. #: 281862 S2/New to UNIX [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 00:13:15 Sb: #281847-Installing LINUX Fm: Thomas Mueller 76020,273 To: Willy Clarkson 73072,2437 Willy, I believe Linux will run from second hard disk using LILO as secondary loader and OS/2 Boot Manager as primary loader. Another possibility is to install LILO in place of OS/2 Boot Manager on disk 1; that does not use a partition. You could even put LILO on a floppy boot disk. Repartitioning disk 2 so as to include a Linux partition, or two partitions if you include a swap partition, will require a place to save the current OS/2 data. Tom #: 281868 S2/New to UNIX [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 04:05:05 Sb: #281847-Installing LINUX Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: Willy Clarkson 73072,2437 >>.. using boot manager, will LINUX install and run from disk two instead of the first disk? ..<< Yes, definitely. You have to repartition using OS2, so you can add the Linux partition to your boot manager. When you come to install Linux, go into the Linux fdisk program and retag the partitions you want for Linux as Linux native (Type 83) and Linux swap (Type 82). You will reformat the partitions during Linux installation. Make sure you install Lilo, the Linux loader, on the superblock of the root Linux partition, _not_ in the master boot record or you will overwrite OS2's boot manager. Good luck Tony #: 281871 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 07:56:49 Sb: SystemCommander troubles Fm: Ryszard Kulecki 102660,1667 To: Allen Robinson 102023,2644 Dear All, My first attempt to install Linux and other systems on my PC was complete fiasko! I deleted entire partition 853 Mb, then created new smaller 503 Mb primary Dos, went to System Commander to hide it in order to be able to create another bootable partition. After this nothing but troubles... Something must gone wrong, I decided to start all over again, run fdisk /MBR , now when I create new partition fdisk shows maximum space available as 503Mb not 853! My BIOS at the boot shows correct 853 Mb. Any idea how to restore full drive capacity? Is the part of the drive not accessible by fdisk? My working copy of the System Commander is completely ot of wak, but still have original intact. Please help, Richard. #: 281880 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 09:41:42 Sb: #281862-#Installing LINUX Fm: Willy Clarkson 73072,2437 To: Thomas Mueller 76020,273 (X) Tom I will try with OS/2 boot manager first on the second drive. I was raising the question because the LINUX book indicated a primary partition was required. That isn't a problem. But, in the past, I had to revise my partitions because neither DOS or WIN95 would install on the secondary disk. They refused and had to be put on disk one. OS/2 could care less. Any disk, and primary or logical. Thanks Willy There is 1 Reply. #: 281904 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 16:42:07 Sb: #281902-Installing LINUX Fm: Willy Clarkson 73072,2437 To: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 (X) Tony >>If you are using Win95 you will have to install, or reinstall, the OS2 boot manager again >>afterwards, as Win95 tries to suppress it (and every other competing OS such as >>Linux). WIN95 is already there. The first disk already has boot manager, DOS, WIN95 & OS/2 Warp. I had to re-enable boot manager months ago when I installed WIN95. All is ok now though. From what different CIS members as yourself have replied, it seems all I need is to repartition disk 2 and then add LINUX to the boot manager menu. Thanks Willy #: 281901 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 15:33:21 Sb: #281871-SystemCommander troubles Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: Ryszard Kulecki 102660,1667 >>.. run fdisk /MBR , now when I create new partition fdisk shows maximum space available as 503Mb not 853! My BIOS at the boot shows correct 853 Mb..<< Although Dos can only see 503Mb, the whole 853Mb drive should be seen by Linux, so you can add your Linux partitionsusing the Linux fdisk utility beyond the 503Mb limit - at least if you are using most recent versions of Linux. Tony #: 281906 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 19-Jul-96 17:57:35 Sb: #281871-SystemCommander troubles Fm: Peter Johnston 70630,571 To: Ryszard Kulecki 102660,1667 Richard, 1. V-Communications technical support is, in my experience, excellent. 2. If you got as far as actually formatting a partition under Linux, your media descriptor byte will be set to a value (83?) that prevents MS-DOS FDISK from operating on it. From your description, it doesn't sound as if you got that far. 3. How old is your BIOS? It could be that you were, without knowing it, running some sort of disk manager software to fool DOS into seeing a drive larger than 500 Mb (I forget the exact size). If you repartitioned or reformatted the drive, that software would have been effectively deleted, so DOS could only see a drive limited to the 'normal' DOS maximum. Unless your PC supports LBA disk access (or you've somehow turned it off in BIOS), this seems a likely possibility. 4. If you install Linux, it will see the full disk size set in the BIOS. If you use the Linux FDISK, you may then be able to create a useable DOS partition, and use System Commander to acheive your ends, albeit with the partitions 'the wrong way round' from what you intended. ***WARNING The creation of MS-DOS partitions with Linux is 'not recommended' and may not work.*** Regards Peter #: 281925 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 20-Jul-96 10:26:17 Sb: #281906-SystemCommander troubles Fm: Ryszard Kulecki 102660,1667 To: Peter Johnston 70630,571 (X) Peter, >> Unless your PC supports LBA disk access (or you've somehow turned it off in BIOS), >> this seems a likely possibility. Excellent point ! LBA was off, now I'm back on track . Thank you for your response, Richard #: 282003 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 22-Jul-96 07:20:13 Sb: #282002-LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 >>.. Can LINUX be installed on an HPFS partition? ..<< I don't think so. If it can, it won't work properly as HPFS access is read-only. >>.. Can LINUX read files on an HPFS partition? ..<< Yes, but access is read-only. >>.. Can LINUX apps work on files located on an HPFS partition? See above. You may be able to access HPFS files sufficiently to produce results that you need in your Linux partition, e.g. when patching the kernel (from /usr/src in Slackware) you may be able to "gunzip -c /hpfsdrive/cserve/download | patch -p0" I do that with downloads to /dosc (my C: drive) on a regular basis, which patches correctly, leaving the original downloaded gzipped patch untouched, but my C: drive is dos, not HPFS. If you want to try, please let us know how it works. Tony #: 282045 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 22-Jul-96 20:30:04 Sb: #282038-#LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Martin von Lowis 74453,752 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 Steve, If you intend to share a large amount of data between Linux and OS/2, a small FAT partition is probably not the best option. Linux cannot read HPFS, and it has been that way for several years now. Check out the ext2fs driver for OS/2, though. Regards, Martin There are 2 Replies. #: 282061 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 23-Jul-96 02:16:56 Sb: #282038-LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 >>.. I am trying to figure out the best assortment of partitions for a three OS setup using HPFS and ?ext2 formats (in addition to a mimimally sized FAT partiition for DOS) for optimal performance..<< That is exactly what I have, except my Dos/Win partition is more than minimal, since it is the fallback for my business when I get stuck with Linux - which happens frequently, as I am still learning. Also I am still trying to decide which version of Linux to major on so I have three loaded experimentally: Slackware, Linux-FT and Caldera. The whole lot are controlled by the OS2 boot manager. How big is your HD? I have a 1.2+ gig Quantum Fireball, of which I have allocated 200Mb for Dos/Win, 200Mb HPFS for OS2, 200Mb for Slackware, 200Mb for Linux-FT, and the balance of 400+Mb to Caldera (because I,m still playing with it most). I have two other DHs, one backing up Dos/Win and OS2, and one backing up the Linuxen, but am looking for a second Quantum identical to the first. Tony #: 282100 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 24-Jul-96 03:29:45 Sb: #282076-LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Martin von Lowis 74453,752 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 Stephen, Sorry, no, there are no ext2 drivers for NT or Win95, yet. The OS/2 driver consists of a IFS and a type specific driver (TSD) which allows you to assign arbitrary drive letters to your ext2 partitions (and, in the course, to any other partition). This was necessary because the original one would do strange things if told to accept ext2 partitions. The architecture of a Win95 IFS would be similar, however, the DDK is not specific enough to actually enable a developer to write an IFS for Win95. As there is *some* documentation, I expect this one day or the other, though. As for NT, Microsoft is withholding any information on how file system drivers on NT work. They promised to release an FS SDK years ago, but later dropped that plan. So, no third party IFS drivers for NT any time soon. Finally, there are the ext2 tools for DOS. These are applications rather than drivers. So you have tools like e2ls and e2cp. Although this does not give you native file system feeling, it still allows you to get files off the ext2 drive. Regards, Martin #: 282174 S2/New to UNIX [UNIXFORU] 25-Jul-96 13:26:13 Sb: #282171-dos/windows/unix Fm: Udo Munk 74431,1671 To: Mary Childs 100621,2710 (X) This is possible yes, Linux comes with a UMDOS filesystem which lives as a huge file under DOS. It is not recomended to use this because it causes a significant performance loss for filesystem I/O, but it is possible. It comes with a program you run from DOS to boot Linux, so it is not necessary to replace the boot loader at all. #: 282203 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 26-Jul-96 02:33:42 Sb: #282109-#LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Martin von Lowis 74453,752 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 >>Do the ext2fs tools for DOS, allow access to files located on an ext2fs partition when one is running DOS or Windows on a FAT partition? Exactly. As for booting OS/2 from an ext2 partition, I understand it is 'somewhat' supported. That is, if you could get around the part where the OS/2 boot loader reads config.sys to load the ext2 driver, it would work. As for NT and HPFS, are you aware that HPFS support is being dropped from NT4? Martin #: 604962 S0/Outbox File 26-Jul-96 18:42:00 Sb: partitioning 2hds !! Fm: stephen s rinsler To: all I have installed a second hard drive which has now been sitting empty for a while. I have DOS, OS/2 installed as operating systems on Partition C from which I boot. The new drive is larger and ultimately I may want to make it my C: drive and boot everything from it. However, at this time I have no desire to move the existing OSes to this drive, so I thought I might just format 2 partitions first and just install Linux on this drive. I am planning to install System Commander onto the C: partition (where DOS and OS2 currently are located). If I make the second hard (which is much the larger of the two) the C: drive, I will do so by switching the drive to the primary IDE connection on the motherboard from the secondary one it is connected to now. In anticipation of that, I plan to make the first partition on this second drive FAT and then have a ext2fs format (for Linux). OS/2 files can be written and read from ext2fs partitions using the ext2fs for OS2 utility. With this setup, OS/2 should be able to access all partitions (if I don't use a primary partition on the second hard drive) and Linux will be able to see everything (except the files on the FAT partition?). (I won't need an HPFS partition unless that is desirable for an OS2 swap file.) Size of partitions: to begin with, I thought I would have a small (200 meg) FAT partition and then a medium (700 meg?) ext2fs partition and leave 700 megs unformatted for now.) I await comments with bated breath. Steve #: 282306 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 28-Jul-96 10:53:57 Sb: #282252-partitioning 2hds !! Fm: C. Hoesle-Kienzlen 100120,1273 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 Stephen: be careful. As far as I know, you can read OS/2 but not write to it. DOS is absolutely no problem, you can read and write to any FAT partition, be it primary or secondary, from linux. You should consider how many primary partitions you will use. DOS will serve those first with drive-letters. DOS will not "see" an HPFS or ext2fs - formatted primary partition at all, it only sees a primary partition anyhow if it is bootable. Linux has no such constraints, it can be booted from any partition, primary or extended. On good way would be if you set up the OS/2 bootmanager as the first partition on the first HD, then partition all others with OS/2s FDISK, especially those for Linux. Then you can use the bootmanager to boot either of the three OSses. If you partition the Linux partitions with Linux's FDISK, then the bootmanager will not accept them. To be sure, OS/2s start partition should be starting below 512 MB, otherwise you will have troubles. Again, Linux is not so particular. I have the following configuration: HD0: 1) (primary) OS/2s bootmanager - 2 MB 2) (primary) DOS-drive C: - for ODS/Windoze programs 3) (primary) HPFS-OS/2 drive C: for OS/2 programs 4) (extended) DOS drive D: for DOS/Windoze data HD1: 1) (extended) DOS drive E: for DOS/Windoze temp and swap 2) (extended) HPFS-OS/2 drive D: for OS/2 data 3) (extended) HPFS-OS/2 drive E: for swap 4) (primary) ext2fs Linux root 5) (primary) ext2fs Linux /home 6) (primary) ext2fs Linux swap My choice reflects what I want the different OSses to see and, in case of DOS and OS/2 what drive-letters I want them to allocate. This way, I have C: D: and E: each for DOS and OS/2 (where OS/2 can see the D: and E: DOS-partitions and DOS can not see any other than it's own. Linux can see them all, but then Linux doesn't use those ridiculous drive letters. You see, there are all kinds of ways to do this, it's really very tricky. Cheers, Conrad #: 282306 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 28-Jul-96 10:53:57 Sb: #282252-partitioning 2hds !! Fm: C. Hoesle-Kienzlen 100120,1273 To: stephen s. rinsler 70353,714 Stephen: be careful. As far as I know, you can read OS/2 but not write to it. DOS is absolutely no problem, you can read and write to any FAT partition, be it primary or secondary, from linux. You should consider how many primary partitions you will use. DOS will serve those first with drive-letters. DOS will not "see" an HPFS or ext2fs - formatted primary partition at all, it only sees a primary partition anyhow if it is bootable. Linux has no such constraints, it can be booted from any partition, primary or extended. On good way would be if you set up the OS/2 bootmanager as the first partition on the first HD, then partition all others with OS/2s FDISK, especially those for Linux. Then you can use the bootmanager to boot either of the three OSses. If you partition the Linux partitions with Linux's FDISK, then the bootmanager will not accept them. To be sure, OS/2s start partition should be starting below 512 MB, otherwise you will have troubles. Again, Linux is not so particular. I have the following configuration: HD0: 1) (primary) OS/2s bootmanager - 2 MB 2) (primary) DOS-drive C: - for ODS/Windoze programs 3) (primary) HPFS-OS/2 drive C: for OS/2 programs 4) (extended) DOS drive D: for DOS/Windoze data HD1: 1) (extended) DOS drive E: for DOS/Windoze temp and swap 2) (extended) HPFS-OS/2 drive D: for OS/2 data 3) (extended) HPFS-OS/2 drive E: for swap 4) (primary) ext2fs Linux root 5) (primary) ext2fs Linux /home 6) (primary) ext2fs Linux swap My choice reflects what I want the different OSses to see and, in case of DOS and OS/2 what drive-letters I want them to allocate. This way, I have C: D: and E: each for DOS and OS/2 (where OS/2 can see the D: and E: DOS-partitions and DOS can not see any other than it's own. Linux can see them all, but then Linux doesn't use those ridiculous drive letters. You see, there are all kinds of ways to do this, it's really very tricky. Cheers, Conrad #: 282317 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 28-Jul-96 18:08:28 Sb: #282299-LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Martin von Lowis 74453,752 To: Thomas Mueller 76020,273 Tom, >As for disk space taken just to support HPFS under Win NT, I suppose that would be the size of the .IFS file. Oh, I just found that I misread your message. Yes, on NT 3.51, it is just pinball.sys: 121K. For comparison, the NTFS driver is 326K, and the FASTFAT driver 130K. Only CDFS is smaller: 48K. I don't think that space considerations are the reason to drop it, that would be stupid considering the total size of NT. It is the man power that this driver consumed, and which can now be spend elsewhere. Imagine the following scenario: Somebody changes the IFS interface for NT 4, maybe for performance reasons. The HPFS driver would need an update, however, there is a permanent shortage of skilled IFS people (all over the world). So the management decides to let these people work on something else. >>MS has been dropping OS/2 support from a lot of other products as well I can't blame them for not supporting a dying operating system, anymore. I never thought it would be a success, anyways. >>difficultirs running some of the Windows products under WIN-OS/2. Well, I had difficulties to run OS/2 software on OS/2 (drivers in particular), so I'm not surprised that the Windows emulation has problems. Windows software is designed for Windows, not for OS/2. If the emulation is bad, fix the emulation. Martin #: 282331 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 29-Jul-96 05:01:55 Sb: #282298-LINUX and HPFS?? Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: Thomas Mueller 76020,273 >>.. Most of us will be straitjacketed into using M$ OSs if we are willing to be, and don't develop applications for other OSs such as OS/2 and Linux/Unix..<< I guess that is right. Further to which I am becoming concerned by the shortage of commercial ports to Linux. Apart from the Unix version of WordPerfect now available from Caldera either stand-alone or as part of their "Network Office Suite" (as Lasermoon rather grandly describes it, though Caldera still refers to it on their Internet site as an "applications bundle"), there is not too much available. Up to now I have not tried it, but I will very shortly. Apart from that there is Angoss Smartware Plus, Wazo and not much else. Fortunately the quality of the shareware and freeware available for Linux/Unix is pretty good, and generally adequate for internet use, but I really need commercially supported DTP, scanning, painting and drawing packages as well as Internet stuff. To that end, I intend to start badgering Corel, Adobe and others. I suggest other Linux users do the same. Tony #: 282332 S16/Linux System [UNIXFORU] 29-Jul-96 05:02:02 Sb: #282306-partitioning 2hds !! Fm: Tony Beaumont 100752,3204 To: C. Hoesle-Kienzlen 100120,1273 >>.. On good way would be if you set up the OS/2 bootmanager as the first partition on the first HD, then partition all others with OS/2s FDISK, especially those for Linux..<< Yes that works - except you forgot to add that you must then retag the Linux partitions as Type83 (Linux native) or Type 82 (Linux swap), and format (or reformat) them during the Linux install. Tony