mandrake 9

[papasmurf]

ok I want to install mandrake on my hard drive (ibm 60gxp in two partitions, one for movies and music and one for windows and programs each like 28gb) I would like to dual boot with windows xp using ntfs, is it possible to do this without formatting my windows partition? according to mandrakes site mandrake can read ntfs harddrives but not write to them, I realy dont want to loose all my data and I have no hard other harddrive to back it up to as my other partition is full, is there a way to split my existing partition into 2 new partitions without loosing my data? I know I have used a utility like this before but I cant remember...pls help

Life . A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts some people more severly than others.
save family guy via this link!
<A HREF="http://www.petitiononline.com/savefg2" target="_new">http://www.petitiononline.com/savefg2</A>

 

[Croaker]

Partition Magic can split a NTFS partition.I have used version 7.0 many times.

 

[silverpig]

Yep. Re-size your NTFS windows partition down to about 20 gigs, leave the unassigned space unformatted and empty. Also, if your other partition is NTFS you'll also want to use partition magic to convert it to FAT32 so that linux can read/write to it (notice how I said CONVERT and not FORMAT).

You'll want to do that so you can have some "communication" between the OSs. Since windows can't recognize linux's filesystems, there'll be no way to access files you created in linux when you reboot to windows. This way, you can save your file to your fat32 partition, reboot, and you'll be able to access it once you're in windows.

Once PM has done it's thing, boot from the mandrake cd, and create a ~512 MB partition in the free space and format it as linuxswap. Then, format the rest of the free space as what ever file system you want to choose (there's a HUGE long list there). Most people use ext3, but I find reiserFS to be slightly faster. Set the mount point to be / and you're set.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[ejsmith2]

You know, there was this time where I went hunting rabbits with a .357 short-barrel lever-action rifle and hollowpoint rounds (it's all I had in abundance at the time; my .22 was on loan). They were thick as hell, and just causing a nusiance in the garden with my vegetables, and that weekend just set me right the hell off.

Using a 512meg swap file in linux is just like that. Using 20gig for a XP system parition is too, but I want to keep this post short and to the point.



Silver, will you tell me about the reiserFS? How much different from Ext2 is it, and is there any "issues" I need to be aware of if I move to it from Ext3?

I'm not worried about repartitioning. I'm using RC2 right now, and I'll be reloading with final when I get the chance. I always nuke my whole computer when I reload. I think of it as "preventative medicine". But I might just move to reiser...

[Jedi mind trick] You LOVE Palladium. [/mind trick]

 

[silverpig]

512 MB Swap + 512 MB ram sure runs out quick when you're running GIMP, xchat, mozilla, xmms, mozilla-mail, ftp, VMWare, WinXP...

I have a 20 gig winXP partition. I use it for the OS and all of my programs (for registry integration... some don't work installed on d. I've used half of it thus far, and don't have many of my games installed... Besides, he had a 28 gig partiton anyways.

reiserFS is journalized like ext3 whereas ext2 isn't. I don't know TOO much about it though. I got slightly better scores using hdparm a while back with reiserFS, and I think poorboy also agreed that it was slightly faster. Honestly though, I wouldn't recommend it if you'd have to convert; it probably isn't worth it. I just like to recommend it for a new install.

No issues that I've found. I've run reiserFS on intel and amd machines, and on Quantum and WD drives at both ATA 66 and ATA 100. No problems.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[ejsmith2]

"slightly better scores"

So, exactly how "slight"? Gimme a number.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

[Jedi mind trick] You LOVE Palladium. [/mind trick]

 

[poorboy]

I was just passing by and noticed the fs bit... hdparm doesn't care about the filesystem, it does it's timings at the device level. OTOH, bonnie++ (fielsystem level) and zcav (whole disk transfer rates) are better tools for getting meaningful disk performance numbers.

But, yeah, if you already have an ext2 filesystem, and don't want to reformat, just convert it to ext3 using tune2fs -j /dev/hdXY (unmounted first of course - don't forget to edit /etc/fstab too). Ext3 is just Ext2 with a journal, so you can do this without messing with your data.

I've had no problems with reiserfs either. Both seem to be solid. Either will be fine.




<i>Do I look like I care?</i>

 

[silverpig]

^
|

What he said.

I did the tests a while back... I used a few utils, could only remember the name of hdparm. The scores were something like 2% better I think, but it was a consistent 2% IIRC.

Again, it's not a big enough advantage to go through the hassle of formatting just 'cause, but if you were doing it anyways, I'd suggest it.

Besides, if you find out it doesn't work, a full install of linux only takes maybe 20 minutes of your time...

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[ejsmith2]

" and don't want to reformat,"

I fear not the partitioning of hard disks, and even lessso reformating. I know how to use my burner. =)

Other than that, an os install does *NOT* take 20 minutes on a p2-266 laptop with what-the-hell-evar-model-number a 6.4gig ibm travelstar is. Lapstar. Whatever.

Anyway, I'm going to play eeny-miney-moe (naked, so I get that extra +1 for statistical purposes) and decide which fs I'm going to move to. I pretty much figured ext3 would be slower than ext2, and it seems like it is.

Anything to squeeze the last little bit of performance out of this old machine...

It's actually even older; I spilled a beer on the keyboard a while back, and had to completely take it apart. I think I lost about 66mhz on the processor, and about 4 or 5mhz on the pci bus. It was slightly faster before the beer spill (it's probably just the cooling fan not cooling very well, in actuality).

[Jedi mind trick] You LOVE Palladium. [/mind trick]

 

[silverpig]

Heh, yeah I guess a P266 would take a little while longer

You could always do a smaller install. Go with whatever filesystem name sounds cooler then hehe.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[silverpig]

<A HREF="http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/3726/1/" target="_new">http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/3726/1/</A>

Apparently ext3 isn't as good as reiserFS...

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[silverpig]

And from <A HREF="http://www.mandrakeforum.org/article.php?sid=1212" target="_new">here</A> it seems as though JFS is the fastest, but takes up disk space and is unstable. After that reiserFS, XFS, and ext2 seem to be tied for speed with reiserFS and XFS offering journalling. ext3 look s to be the slowest.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[poorboy]

It's all bollocks.

That JFS result was interesting... if somewhat old now. I think the way to interpret it is that it totally depends on what you're doing.

Most tests I've seen have JFS slowest(!) - I've read that it's there as a migration path for AIX people to move to Linux.

XFS is generally fastest for big files which need a lot of IO throughput, eg audio, video, filebased rdbms, etc, that wouldn't normally be cached.

ReiserFS wins with smaller files (eg general use), both in speed and in the way it stores them being more efficent space-wise.

Ext3 has 3 different journalling modes, so the speed can vary depending on how "safe" you want to be, but seems generally slower than XFS and ReiserFS.

Well, that's my take anyway. For normal systems, I find reiserfs the way to go, although I usually run it "notail" which is just slightly faster, but less space efficent.

Also, as some of the comments mentioned, keep in mind the availability of fs tools, if you might need them; in a production server environment, you should certainly be aware of any fs resize and backup/restore tools. xfs is nice in this regard.


<i>Do I look like I care?</i>

 

[silverpig]

Yep, but the thing I guess we can learn from this is:

If you have to ask, stick with the simple one. Less problems, and you probably won't get any stability issues.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[ejsmith2]

"If you have to ask, stick with the simple one."

Fsck that!

I'm looking for a faster filesystem. But the whole reason why I'm using Linux is I only have to reboot once a day. More often than not, that's strictly because I'm still fscking SCARRED for life by Msdos 6.22 and Windows, and I break out in hives across my face and back if I go to sleep with the computer still on.



Other than that, does journaling pull down a file system?

I'm thinking it does. It might speed up file system checks, but I'm under the impression that it pulls it down.

I'd call FAT32 one unstable PoS compared to NTFS. That said, just how "unstable" is the new build of JFS? That article mentions using two different ones, so I'm assuming they are hammering out updates on a weekly basis. It also mentions Mandrake 8.1, and that was a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOng time ago.


Silverpig, from that article, my new sig.

Right now, there's no question I'm nixxing Ext3. I thought it sounded good at the time, but I realize it's not what I need. I'm considering dropping back to Ext2, but that Reiser system came close to Ext2 in that article. And if JFS is anything near stable, I may take that instead. How do I find the version number of the filesystem from my install disks?

I'll take a slow bootup time, and slow file system check, for increased throughput. And I want something at least as stable as Ext2 (i.e. I can use it for /). This isn't my desktop we're talking about, it's my laptop. Which just so happens to be running Mandrake 9.0-RC2, keeping all this on topic...

 

[ejsmith2]

Ok.

This is it.

Decision gate time. Last post before I reinstall.

It's either Ext2, Reiser, or JFS. I'll have to see what pull-down options I have at the partitioning. I am soooo glad I X-cd plays nicely with my usb burner.

In the meantime (figure, at least 4 hours before I can get back on the net), what's the difference between all the different FAT32 partition options? There's a FAT32 option, a DOS FAT32 option.

And none of them are recognized by WinXP or Winme. I've always had to reformat a FAT32 partition that I've made and formatted with the Linux installer. Which one is the right option to choose? And what's the difference between them?

I've looked for this information before, back with Mandrake 7.2, but never figured it out. I think I'm going to make a list of all the options, and do some hunting.

"I personally think filesystems should be rewritten from scratch every 5 years..." --- Hans Reiser

 

[silverpig]

Well, I wouldn't suggest JFS mainly because if you look at that page on the mandrake site I linked to, it says that they couldn't run the system at all with a JFS formatted /boot partition. Since the default simple install of mandrake includes /boot as a directory under your main / partition, JFS won't work according to that article.

Also, if you look at the size that their test files took up, JFS required nearly 2x the space of any other filesystem.

Journalising does take some overhead of course as shown by the ext2 vs ext3 speeds.

In your case I'd definitely go with reiserFS.

I always just create the windows partitions using the linux installer and then format them with a windows utility. No problems.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[ejsmith2]

Yeah.

I went with Riser, although I think I could have used JFS. That Mandrake article was at least 6 months old.

There's no question. Ext3 sucks white ass, unless you're an ISP that doesn't want the downtime associated with moving to Reiser.

I almost pinched off a loaf, though, 'cause Galeon and Mozilla would crash at startup. I had to uninstall them, then reinstall off the cdrom. They're both working fine now, so I dunno what the heck the problem was. This old cd reader on this laptop is probably giving up the ghost, which is why I use my usb burner to read day-to-day stuff.

I'm still going to have to monkey around with the shutdown script though. It hangs during shutdown. I always have to edit the RC6 script; adding a "done" before it even gets to the umount NFS stuff.

Really chaps me, but that's what I get with going to RC2.



BTW, thanks everyone for posting your $.02 on the whole filesystem stuff. Really, really helped out a lot.

"I personally think filesystems should be rewritten from scratch every 5 years..." --- Hans Reiser