[I Fix 4 U]

so u use fdisk erasing all data and just put linux back from another location by dd?

[saikee]

I standardise my Linux partitions with Ext2 file system.

If the source and target partitions are the same size and have the same partition number I use dd to transfer from one hard disk to another. The transfer distro will boot without modification (after I include it in the MBR's bootloader of course).

If the source and target partitions are different size I have to use tar which preserves the file structure, ownership etc. The transfer distro also need no modification.

If the source and target partitions are different size and different partition name then after transfer by tar I need to amend the partition references in boot menu, fstab and mtab files.

I try to avoid a re-installation if I could retain the installed distros. This works fine as long as the Linux had been installed in the same computer with identical hardware.

I do keep backup copies of my dsitros.

[I Fix 4 U]

so when you're just swapping a distro from partition to partition if you are modifing your table?

[saikee]

Don't understand your question iXneonXi.

If the source locates at a partition different to the target then the references to the old partition must be revised to the new one.

My point is once you have a distro installed successfully you can keep on using it in various partitions and there is no need to re-install it unless it is damaged beyond repair.

[I Fix 4 U]

o your just saying you move your linuxes from partition to partition if needed. but why would you need to move them?

[saikee]

I started with one Linux taking over the whole drive, then I put it togther with XP, then XP with 4 Linux, then 16 partitions and finally the 28 partitions. I did it by moving from one drive to another. It is much quicker and safer than resizing. I have resizing messing up the partition table before. It is only a few minutes in copying a partition over.

I have all my hard drives in caddies and none fixed inside any of my computers (except laptops). It is true plug and play in my case.

When investigating your two Windows system booting I just slipped in two backup copies of my XP into the same computer to see if I could boot 3 XPs with Linux. This setup allows me to find out things quickly.

[I Fix 4 U]

For the person who started this thread i do know of geom problems but i have had fc2 successfully installed and able to multiboot with my xp on the same computer with absolutely no problems.
___________________________________________________________
Note To Saikee:
i'd like to get back on chat sometime when its best for you b/c that looks like an interestin method i think i should get really good at. or you could pm me and describe it in much detail. also, win98 is succesfully installed in the other harddrive and i can boot it if i change my bios. linspire nuked winxp's mbr like i didnt want but i was able to acess via the grub floppy (thanx ) We really need to talk i need to get a few things sorted out and put things back to normal.

[saikee]

iXneonXi,

Think we have hijacked this thread to talk about our own things but at least you and I can confirm that FC2 does work and the geometry problem may not entirely created by FC2.

I put my hard disk information forward because that I thought it would be a prime candidate for the alleged problem. FC2 and Red Hat have served me well. They are stable and stand shoulder to shoulder among the top Linux performers. I feel I should speak out to defend them.

If you have any other Linux issue I shall be glad of any asistance. Just catch me whenever you see in in MSN Messenger. I am not due to be away for a few weeks yet.

[I Fix 4 U]

Thanx saikee. Yah FC2 is quite a nice system esp w/ redhat updater. See you on MSN.

Sorry to you robert about messing with your thread but basically ask me or saikee to help you set up a dualboot xp system. we have done it successfully. i will be on aim alot and my screename if iXneonXi. I prefer not to reveal my MSN name.

ps do you think the geom errors are kernel related, or anaconda (installer) related?

[dago]

saikee has described a nice method to backup, upgrade and install our distros if we have at least two disks available.
I understand precisely what he says because I'm familiar with things he has done, despite I don't have similiar architecture.
I want to make you some questions: suppose you have distros A, B and C. And you have disks /dev/hda and /dev/hdb
You said anytime you need repartitioning, you simply repartition correctly one of your disks and flip A, B and C to the correctly partitioned disk, right?
Fine, repartitioning is not a issue that way...

But, what happen when you need to move B from /dev/hda to /dev/hdb? Do you have to use A or C to do that? Could you use B for moving itself or not?
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 'dd' specially because I never know the block size. I would really enjoy if you post your command line as an example.

Thanks for this thread.

PS: one more note, if you have HEADS=16 at BIOS, FC2 installation will work no problem. That probably explains the examples we had FC2 working fully with WinXP and I'm pretty sure this is an Anaconda bug.

[I Fix 4 U]

k i'll try that out, i'm going to reinstall fc2.

[saikee]

dd copies the data in native mode, in 1s and 0s, and so the file type has no consequence. Therefore it can be used for cloning a hard drive with both Windows and Linux partitions.

The strength of dd is also its weakness because it work perfectly only if the size of both source and target drives or partitions are identical.

The block size can be omitted and a deafult value will probably be used as most hard drive has 512 bytes per sector. My experience with dd, for two identical 200Gb disks with XP and loads of Linux inside, on block sizes yields the following results. ( the hdd has 512 bytes/sector, 63 sectors/head and 255 heads/cylinder so 512x63=32256=one track size and 512x63x255=8225280=one cylinder size)

(1) dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdb took over 4 hours. Disk has 28 partitions.
(2) dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdb bs=8225280 took over 2 hours. Disk has 28 partitions.
(3) dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdb bs=32256 took over 1.5 hours. Disk has 16 partitions previously. Using Norton Ghost the operation took over 4 hours.

Thus Linux's dd command outperforms a commercial software like Norton Ghost.

I would use dd if the source and target partitions are same size and have the same partition number (say 5th partition) by typing

dd if=/dev/hda5 of=/dev/hdb5

I don't bother with block size for a partition because it is a few minutes job for a 10Gb transfer.

Tar command is more flexible and this is the thread I learned from. The relevant bit is by the moderator DMR when he started "here is the deal". I follow his method exactly but omitting the verbose parameter "v" as I don't need to see screen scrolling during copying. Also I now do it with a script adding the command "date" before and after the tar command so that I get the time record of the whole process.

[I Fix 4 U]

sounds cool. still think i need an estimate when you will be on msn though. i have a few things i need to sort out.

[saikee]

There is a threat for me to go to Abu Dhabi this weekend but I should be in the evening Thursday and Friday.

[I Fix 4 U]

i'll pm you when i figure things out.