home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
OS/2 Shareware BBS: 36 Tips
/
36-Tips.zip
/
multios.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-09-24
|
54KB
|
1,368 lines
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<g>. 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 <g>.
> (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<g>). 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<g>.
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