is their a boot partiton that need to be kept seperate in ubuntu? Screenshot.png those are my partitons in the pic above am i okay to merge them all into the dev/sda2 or is it like windows and i need to keep a small section back for the boot?
View 5 RepliesGNU GRUB 0.97
Ubuntu 8.04.4
2.6.24-26
Added an SSD (dev/sdc) and decided to move some less often changed directories there. Started with /usr and /boot, leaving / on a primary in the first drive, for now. All started ok, and my changed fstab mounted the right ones, and the system works.
However, grub is actually using the original /boot on / on sda1. I cannot see any way to change this. (Which makes it sorta hard to update the kernel
From grub:
Okay, since it has two choices, I tried to tell it which one to use. But, grub> root (hd2,5) does nothing.
Disk /dev/sda:
what I seem to recall, grub doesn't care about the boot flag on the disk. Nor does it care about primary vs. logical (except GNU doc says "makeactive" only works on a primary?).
The GNU doc also indicates that it looks for a directory /boot on the partition, so if you're mounting a partition as /boot, it also needs to contain a /boot directory under it. Tried that, but no change.
Is my problem the logical partition? Does that prevent "grub> root" from changing it? I'm afraid to wipe out the old /boot and find that I can't start up.
While installing with a separate /boot partition I cannot get two distinct copies of ubu installed on one machine and be able to choose between them. Each is installed on a different hard drive. x64 versions. I've had this issue both ways:
Stepsinstall mythbuntu
install ubuntu
Result
Two entries in grub. Both cause ubuntu to boot
Stepsinstall ubuntu
install mythbuntu
Result
Two entries in grub. Both cause mythbuntu to boot Grub 2 is so unfriendly for fixing these things. I don't know where to make changes. Ok, Grub 2 is very powerful, maybe it's the lagging documentation, or lack of tutorials that is the problem. But I don't know how to fix this. Do I start over without the /boot partition? Do I bail on ubu?
I have a 320gb USB hard drive, one partition for my files, one for playing Wii games, and one which I would like to use for an Ubuntu instillation.
To do this, I partitioned my disk accordingly using Windows, then booted from the Ubuntu CD to install the OS to my external hard drive partition. It asked me where I wanted to install the boot loader, so I selected the hard drive itself, rather than the specific partition, reasoning that it would scan the hard drive for a boot record.
However, when I booted it (with USB boot selected) it simply said "No Operating System found, replace system disk and press enter" or something similar.
I have been working in my spare time over the last few days, Had problems with the whole grub2 not installing on RAID 1. Then I found out that I had to have a separate non raid Ext4 partition on one drive with "/Boot" as mount point and install went though fine.
My question is, will the developers FIX this. I mean if I only have 2 x 2tb drives in teh pc as RAID 1, and the one fails with the boot partition the whole machine goes down. Kinda defeats the whole RAID feature huh.
I USED to run a windows network with RAID 5 servers, and windows never had a problem installing everything on the RAID. Or even setting up RAID 1 in the bios on the PC and installing XP or NT4 on the RAID 1. There was never a need for a separate non raid boot partition.
Do we need a separate RAID friendly/enabled Grub? I guess for now I will get a 250gb drive and install the Server OS to it, and setup RAID1 manually after the server OS boots. Then will make a ghost type image of the server in case that drive fails so I can quickly install a new drive and restore the image and get it back up and running again.
P4 2.4gHZ 2.0GB Ram I have tried to do some reading on this by googling and such, but it is all a bit overwhelming and so many posts/articles want to deal with dual booting which I am not planning to do on this machine. I am trying to find some info on whether it is better to have a separate boot partition. As in, separate from root partition. I have read that a separate boot partition makes for a quicker start and better recovery if system crashes. I will shortly be installing openSuse 11.2(KDE) [currently on 11.0] and I want to optimise the partition scheme so that it is the most efficient. I have a 160GB HDD that will be housing this new installation, so space is not a problem. I am only user on this machine. Currently, it is just partitioned as such:
2.0GB - swap [because I read it should equal Ram]
32.0GB - /
40.0GB - /home
76.8GB - extra storage [Not really necessary as I have 2 other HDD on system 1 - 320GB and 1 - 200GB]
Also, is it recommended to have separate partitions for /tmp /var or any other /nnn ?
I have a 320gb USB hard drive, one partition for my files, one for playing Wii games, and one which I would like to use for an Ubuntu instillation.o do this, I partitioned my disk accordingly using Windows, then booted from the Ubuntu CD to install the OS to my external hard drive partition. It asked me where I wanted to install the boot loader, so I selected the hard drive itself, rather than the specific partition, reasoning that it would scan the hard drive for a boot record.However, when I booted it (with USB boot selected) it simply said "No Operating System found, replace system disk and press en
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have a 320gb USB hard drive, one partition for my files, one for playing Wii games, and one which I would like to use for an Ubuntu instillation. To do this, I partitioned my disk accordingly using Windows, then booted from the Ubuntu CD to install the OS to my external hard drive partition. It asked me where I wanted to install the boot loader, so I selected the hard drive itself, rather than the specific partition, reasoning that it would scan the hard drive for a boot record. However, when I booted it (with USB boot selected) it simply said "No Operating System found, replace system disk and press enter" or something similar.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI originally had my full hard drive as a full Ubuntu partition but I then re-sized that and installed Windows on a new partition. Now I guess the boot sector got overwritten and I don't have a choice to boot either Windows or Ubuntu. I know I have to reconfigure GRUB or another boot loader to allow the choice but I am not sure of how to go about that.
View 5 Replies View RelatedTrying to dual-boot OpenSolaris and FC10 is difficult because Solaris grub doesn't know about ext3 and Fedora grub doesn't know about ZFS. I was able to rescue my FC10 installation by creating a new FAT16 partition and restoring /boot to it from a dump, and then doing a grub setup to it. A complication is that anaconda doesn't seem to be able to find /dev/md0 (both the Solaris and FC10 installs use mirrored disks).
This process moved the FC10 ext3 partition from /dev/sda3 to /dev/sda4, but the other half of the mirror is still /dev/sdb3.
When I boot FC10 I get a "can't load image" error from grub, but it still loads FC10 successfully. It makes no difference if menu.1st/grub.conf has "root (hd0,1)" (the FAT16 partition) or "root (hd0,3)" (the FC10 ext3 partition).
If a future yum update were to try to install a new kernel, my FAT16 partition would not be updated. It seems to me both these problems might be solved if I could move /boot from /dev/md0 to /dev/sda2 (/dev/sda2 is the FAT16 partition).
Rather than go through yet another install, would the following work?
from FC10, move /boot to (say) /boot.0
mkdir /boot
edit fstab to include "mount /dev/sda2 /boot"
If I try this and it doesn't work, I can't see any way to undo it since anaconda doesn't seem to be able to mount /dev/md0. If a grub guru sees this, perhaps they could suggest a better alternative, or if not, whether this will work or not.
Additionally, although there are two alternatives in menu.1st/grub.conf, grub doesn't display a menu - it goes directly to boot. Any idea why? I suppose this might be a Solaris stage1 grub problem...
Since FAT16 doesn't support links, it isn't possible to link grub.conf to menu.1st. Are they both required?
I am triple booting
Windows xp
UBUNTU 10.04
Fedora 13
Everything works fine, the setup went very well. But I got to thinking (A dangerous thing for me). In Ubuntu I am using separate partitions for / (root) and /home. I was wondering, during install of Fedora, could I use the separate partition I am using now for both root and /home for just / (root) and use the Ubuntu /home partition for Fedora (set the mount point for /home to the same partition as I did for Ubuntu and not format the drive)? This would allow me to seamlessly use the /home partition and not require duplication of files. I can mount the Ubuntu /home dir while in Fedora.I can share the /home partition with two different installs of Ubuntu (been there).
Where can I install grub? I know it can be installed to the mbr of a hard drive. I also know it can be installed to a /boot partition. Can I install it to a lvm partition? Does it have to be /boot? grub-install --root-directory=/boot /dev/hda Does this command install grub to a partition and link it to a separate /boot? I have fedora, but this is a live cd. I need to learn where I can install grub2 to boot
View 3 Replies View RelatedNoobish question on multibooting multiple Linux distros. I have four of the current major Linux distributions. Each has been installed and run individually (no other Linux distribution installed) in a dual-boot configuration with Windoze. No problem.
What I want to do is install all four Linux distributions and multiboot them. Reading the internet it would seem this is a simple task with GRUB. The short version being - install a Linux distro with a separate /boot partition for GRUB and use GRUB to boot the other Linux distros from the GRUB boot menu.
So I installed one of the Linux distros with a separate partition for /boot. The distro installer installed GRUB in /boot and correctly setup a dual-boot configuration with Windoze. GRUB was installed to the MBR. Next I installed a second Linux distro in its own root partition and told the distros installer NOT to install GRUB to the MBR, but rather, to the boot sector of the root partion of the second Linux distro. Installation was uneventful (and I could access the second Linux partition from the first installed Linux distro, things looked ok). Then I added to following to the installed (MBR - /boot) GRUB's menu.lst:
Code: title lixux distro 2
root (hd0,7)
chainloader +1 After which I rebooted the system and the new entry for the second Linux distro now appears in the GRUB boot menu. I selected the second Linux distro from the boot menu and got the following GRUB error: Error 5 : Partition table invalid or corrupt
[Code]....
install fedora 11 on Vista I want to keep the windows boot loader and also install on a usb drive or a seperate partition that has 10GB free "install doesn't see partition's". Recently I installed ubuntu and had a major problem with booting, without having the usb drive connected I couldn't boot windows so uninstalled it. I'm trying to install now but install does'nt give me any option to select partitions from my drives one 320GB "portable, 3 partitions" and 80GB "main os 2 partitions one partition has 10GB free"
View 3 Replies View RelatedMy debian 5 is up and running smoothly and act as file-server in the middle of windows network jungle using samba the only problem is, after backup an external hdd (213 GB) to my /home partition, I end up with message say that I'm running out free space. Fyi my debian installed on 1TB SATA disk, and I separate my /home partition from system what happen to my free space ? here is screenshot of my disk, using disk usage analyzer: is there is a way to get my space back or something missing on my setup.or I have to reinstall my debian and use LVM when partitioning my disk?
View 8 Replies View RelatedI was surprised not to find an existing thread on this anywhere, as I would expect this to be a common problem: I have the following partitions on my eee PC 100HE:
10GB Windows XP
5GB Linux Mint 8
5GB Ubuntu 9.10 NBR (awesome distro by the way!)
130GB Home partition shared by Linux Mint and Ubuntu NBR
2GB Swap partition shared by Linux Mint and Ubuntu NBR
I installed Ubuntu NBR after Mint. Immediately after install, the panel layout, menus and colour scheme were slightly messed up - presumeably because they had been "adopted" from the Mint settings in the home folder. I corrected them easily, but now I have the same problem in Mint. Is there any way I can get both distros to use the same /home folder, but different settings (i.e. the /home/username/. folders)? Can I get these settings folders put on a different partition for example?
And is this problem due only to the fact that these are 2 Ubuntu-based distros? Or will I have the same problem if/when I replace Mint with another distro, such as Fedora or Moblin?
I keep my /home on a separate partition. After every clean install of Ubuntu my old panel configuration is loaded. Meaning, shortcuts on my panel and different applets I've put on my panels as well.
what file in the /home folder is keeping these settings? Simply, I'd like to delete so I can have that "fresh" install feeling on my desktop.
I have installed various distros/releases of linux over the past few days and have read of a few people keeping separate partitions for their /home folders. I have a few questions:
1) I assume /home is installed with the OS and would always be on the OS partition.
2) Can I repartition the drive even though I am already installed to allocate space or would I have to start from scratch, create the partitions, and reinstall the OS?
3) How much space would one need for a home folder? Majority of hdd right?
I just bought a new hard drive so that I could convert my XP-only machine into an XP-Ubuntu-Windows 7 triple boot machine.Since the drive is absurdly huge (1 TB) I wouldn't mind throwing ReactOS into the mixtoo.I just found out that master boot records are limited to 4 entries, meaning 4 primary partitions. I had Windows XP set up on my old drive as a boot partition, a program files partition and a media partition. Since I really didn't want to install XP from scratch, I cloned this setup on my new drive.
This leaves me one MBR partition entry for installing Windows 7, Ubuntu and ReactOS. I'd like to avoid having to install XP from scratch like the plague, partly because it's supposed to be a safety net in case things go wrong with my other OS's and because I've invested a lot of time getting it set up exactly the way I like it.Here are the options I've considered and why I don't like them:Install Windows 7 on my media partition. This would work, but I prefer to keep my media partition completely separate from any OS, so that I can reformat an OS partition without affecting my media partition at all.
Use wubi or something to install Ubuntu in the same partition as something else. Again, this is brittle.Move all my media to a logical drive on an extended partition. Create another logical drive on this extended partition for Ubuntu. The problem here is that extended partitions are rather brittle--if you nuke one, it renders the rest useless.Just put the old drive back in my computer and run XP off it. Use the new one for the other OS's. The problem here is that the old drive is slower and uses extra power, generates extra heat, etc.
I'm about to reinstall Ubuntu and one thing I'd like to do is create a separate partition for /home. also what are the exact benefits of that?upgarding ubuntu doesn't necessarily delete your files right?is it just as a security measure in case the kernel becomes corrupted?
View 8 Replies View RelatedI have ubuntu installed as my main operating system with a separate home partition, I also have windows 7 here, although I haven't used it since I installed it. I was planning on using it a bit more, since I'm getting a bored of ubuntu, so I thought I'd get a little variation Anyway, I have this separate home partition (ext4) formatted, that I logically can't access from windows. So I thought I'd make a "shared" partition (NTFS) with my files on it, so I could access them from both ubuntu and windows. Now, can I revert to having my home partition on my Ubuntu partition, or do I have to reinstall or something?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI've been wanting to do this for awhile now, But just got around to having the time/energy to do it.Getting a separate /Home partition is my main goal,But Ive got a couple others as well.
I've never really done much work manually editing/extending/creating of partitions, Soo Im going to need really simple, noob-like instructions if possible. I'd love to get this on the first try without having to start all over.. So I come to you first, before I just jump in and start clicking things.
[Code]...
I want to move my home directory to a separate partition so I can install the new versions of Ubuntu without losing my data. And while I'm at it, what other important directories should I move to separate partitions? And how do I do it? I'm guessing that the /boot directory should also be moved to its own partition too, yes? Because it has the GRUB in it, and if I removed Ubuntu to make way for a newer version of Ubuntu, I'll just get an error because the computer can't find the GRUB that doesn't exist anymore, right? And also, if I move those important yet-to-be-listed directories to their own separate partitions, how large should those partitions be?
I don't want to miss out on the upcoming Lucid Lynx (If it will work in the first place, of course ) By the way, I have an Ubuntu-Windows XP dual-boot system. I'll attach a screenshot of my partition table from GPartEd. You can see that I have about 300 GB. The largest partition is Ubuntu.
I dual boot Ubuntu and Vista. I don't have a whole lot of personal files (mostly everything is on the external HDD) and so I have a spare 55GB partition sitting around with nothing on it, and an almost full Vista 60GB partition. Is it possible to use this spare partition both as a /home and as a Windows Documents partition..?
I'd need to set Ubuntu to automount it and it'd need to be in FAT32 or NTFS for Windows to recognize it but I don't see why it shouldn't work... even though I have no clue how? I'll keep on researching but I couldn't find much concrete info on the topic. I'll try different search terms meanwhile.
Many Ubuntu users seem have their /home folder on a separate partition (better security?). I have a OK dual-boot installation (Win7+Ubuntu 10.04) - should I try to move my /home folder ? If so, how ?I DO NOT want to get into any troubles with my existing setup !I have free (unallocated) disk space both outside and inside the extended partition which is used for Ubuntu (90 GB, Ubuntu is 60 GB ext4 + 7 GB swap).
View 1 Replies View RelatedI recently put ubuntu on my laptop in hope that most of my games would run through wine, some did and some didn't.
Anyway, long story short, I have ubuntu on my laptop and I want to re install windows onto a separate partition, keeping my ubuntu instillation in tact and set as my deafault OS.
I'm very new to ubuntu and the only guides i've seen are fairly complex. I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction? p.s. Is there maybe a way to create an image of my current ubuntu nstillation/settings/apps etc. just in case I do something wrong and lose everything?
I haven't been using Ubuntu for a couple of years. Yesterday I decided to fire up my ubuntu box and upgraded from 8.04 to 10.10.
The upgrade went fine, but when I boot it tells me that the /home dir cant be mounted. It allows me to Wait, Skip, or Manually mount it. If I skip I can log in and mount the partition that contains my /home folder so I know that nothing is corrupt. I'm sure my fstab just got overwritten during the upgrade, but, since its been so long, I don't recall how to (correctly) fix it back.
Cliffs:
--Upgraded from 8.04 to 10.10
--/home dir is on a separate partition & is not mounting properly
--How do I set it up so that my /home dir mounts on boot?
I'd just try messing around with fstab myself, but I really don't want to lose any data.
I was yesterday evening experimenting inserting a script into /boot/grub/grub.cfg. Well I broke grub.cfg and had to try to boot from a grub2 prompt.I have separate /boot and / partitions on /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 respectively.Working out the correct syntax for the boot to work was a little complicated, so I thought it would be useful to post the correct procedure here, in case anyone else has the same set up that I do (separate /boot and / partitions)At the grub prompt code:
grub> set prefix=(hd0,1)/grub
grub> insmod linux
grub> set root=(hd0,2)
[code].....
Compiz settings, my entire GUI would freeze up after the startup splash. It did the little ubuntu jingle and so on but wouldn't actually load up the desktop. I would've booted into recovery mode and deleted the settings that were messing it all up for me, but pressing ESC during grub did nothing! So as a last effort I reinstalled Ubuntu (Karmic) from the live CD on the first partition only, but I don't know how to make the second partition (with my old /home directory) the normal /home directory. The instructions linked above seem to require having done the whole process of moving the partition (so as to create "old" and "new" dirs, etc.).
So there are really two problems here: 1) How does one restore things to normal when a few too many cheeky moves with the desktop effects turns everything to pot? And 2) How does one reinstall Ubuntu with a separate /home partitions
I will be helping a friend upgrade from 9.04 through to 10.04 LTS, and I am aware that the machine was installed with a separate home partition. I know a clean install is an option however I am tempted by online version upgrades with the thought that any apps they are using will be carried over. Is this a realistic hope? I know that medibuntu for example does not survive a version upgrade.
View 6 Replies View Related