Installation of several Linux distros

[Gorky]

I want to install 4 or 5 Linux distros on my computer. I will use GRUB.
Linux needs a swap partition to enhance the performance. I have only 1GB of RAM.

The question is whether it is possible to have one swap partition for all the Linux distros.


hda 0, 0
hda 0,1
hda 0,2
hda 0,3
hda 0, 4
hda 0, 5
hda 0, 6
hda 0, 7
hda 0, 8
hda 0, 9
hda 0, 10
hda 0, 11
Usually, the partitions looks like the above.

[ (hda 0,0) (hda 0,1) (hda 0,2) (hda 0, 3) ---> These are primary partitions.]

I will install Windows XP, and Solaris on a primary partition.
My question is on the swap partition.
Will this work? I mean a single partition for all Linux variants.

Where do I install GRUB? Should it be on hda 0, 0 ?
If I install GRUB on hda, 0,0 , then I can install Windows and Solaris
on hda 0,1 and hda 0,2 .
Your thoughts are welcome.

[saikee]

Yes, one swap is good for 200 Linux if you manage to install them.

--------------------------------------------------
Solaris has its own swap and that is inside the primary because it has sub-slices.

There could be a potential problem in the partition table viewed by Linux if Solaris is present. This is because to Linux, and all PC systems, there can be only one extended partition with many logical partitions inside. Solaris actually uses sub-slices the same way a PC system uses an extended partition. Linux can mistakenly believes Solaris subslices are part of the only-one extended partition. The common error is "Partition XX does not end at the boundary". No damage has been reported by the partition table can be difficult to handle with repeated errors. Solaris also does not use the partition end boundaries the same way as MS, BSD and Linux systems

To save guard your work I recommend putting Solaris in another hard disk and anticipate problems if you introduce an extended partition there. No extended partition then no problem.

-----------------------------------------------------
Grub uses a numbering system and so hard disks are called (hd0), (hd1), (hd2) etc.

Partitions are called (hd0,0), (hd0,1), (hd0,2) ...etc

Although Solaris uses Grub 0.95 it is a modified version as Linux's version cannot boot Solaris directly. Solaris has to be booted by its own Grub. However either Grub can chainload the other.

------------------------------------------------------------
On the choice of Grub's location

(1) Just use the first Linux that has Grub inside and amend its menu.lst to boot all the rest.

(2) Install Grub in a data-only partition. Write a menu.lst to boot every partition by chainloading, then install the PC system one by one afterward. This is unconventional but possibly the simplest.

To install Grub in any data-only partition Grub needs to read it so fat16, fat32, Ext2/3 etc will do but not ntfs. It can be a logical partition. All you need is a directory /boot/grub with the normal stage1, stage2 and stage1.5 files inside plus the menu.lst. To set it up, say it is in (hd1,8) you type these command in a Grub prompt or Grub shell

root (hd1,8)
setup (hd0)

Generally if you install a Linux in any partition just tell the installer you want its boot loader in the root partition. Thereafter every one is chainloadable. You can select any Grub to take over the MBR the same way I describe with the data-only partition.

With Method (2) using a data-only partition to host Grub 100% of the PC systems can be boot by chainloading using the same 3 lines of command

title system in (hdx,y)
root (hdx,y)
chainloader +1

With Method (1) all systems except one can be chainloaded. The partition hosting Grub in this case must be booted by the traditional method of using "kernel" and "initrd". otherwise you boot yourself into a circle.

Happy booting and Welcome to JustLinux

[Gorky]

Thanks for the reply Saikee.
If the swap partition of the Solrais is inside the primary partition where Solaris resides, I think it will not interfere with the rest.

Let us say Solris resides in ( hda 0,2).
So everything pertaining to Solais is inside (hda0,2).

Where do I install GRUB? Should it be on hda 0, 0 ?

[saikee]

Yes all Unix-like systems in PC have a complete filing tree same as Linux with /boot, /home, /etc and so on. They are all housed everything inside one primary partition in a standard installation. If you need access across the platform you have to mount the partitions.

hda1-hda4 or sda1-sda4 are reserved primaries and I normally use the last one as the extended partition. The first logical partition say sda5 is a good choice for Grub for data-only partition residence (Method 2). However when you install the first Linux, say it is in sda3 you can use the Grub there without install Grub separately (method 1). Basically you tell the installer, installing the distro into sda3, that you want Grub in the MBR. Grub will have a full set of files in the sda3's /boot/grub. You simply use the menu.lst there.

In every partition, with the exception of a few "odd" one (odd to me only and not the experienced users!) there is a reserved boot sector for the residence of the boot loader. Thus if you install 100 systems you have 100 boot loaders available for your use. You don't need to install a boot loader separately. If you do it is only for the "simplicity" or "cool" effect or you don't like Lilo. Mind you in chainloading Grub doesn't care what boot loader it has to chainload and Every Lilo is also capable of chainloading 27 systems without a relay.

[Gorky]

Thanks Saikee for taking time to write lengthy replies.

You wrote the following:
hda1-hda4 or sda1-sda4 are reserved primaries and I normally use the last one as the extended partition. The first logical partition say sda5 is a good choice for Grub for data-only partition residence (Method 2).

I think you have made a mistake here.
For the best of my knowledge (hd 0,0) , (hd 0,1) , ( hd 0,2) and (hd 0,3) are primary partitions.
You wrote even (hd 0,4) and (sda 0,4) are primary partitions.
I think the first extended partition is (hd 0,4) or (sda 0,4).
I may be wrong. Please tell me.

Even the numbering hd and sda have changed, I think. Usually, sda for SATA drives and hd for PATA (IDE) drives.
Fedora 7 doesn't recognize in this manner. I am not sure.

[saikee]

Grub has no alphabet in the partition reference except the first two characters "hd" and it always starts with zero.

Therefore Linux's sda1 to sda4 are Grub's (hd0,0) to (hd0,3).

After from kernel 2.6.20 and later Linux officially switches the Pata disk names to the SCSI/Sata/USB family and so reecent distros like Fedora 7 read a Pata but call it sda etc.

Do take my word for the above. While you are in Fedora 7 check it out yourself by

fdisk -l

and then activate a Grub shell and type

geometry (hd0)

When in doubt get it from the horse's mouth!

[Gorky]

Thanks saikee for the reply.
The delay for the reply is that I was busy with so many other things and didn't find to work with the computer.

You are correct.
[root@ ~]# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/hda: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 4551 36555876 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/hda2 4553 24321 158794492+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda3 4552 4552 8032+ f W95 Ext'd (LBA)

Partition table entries are not in disk order
You have new mail in /var/spool/mail/root
[root@ ~]#

----------------------------------------------------
The command geometry doesn't work.
[root@~]# geometry (hd0)
bash: syntax error near unexpected token `hd0'
[root@~]#
Why didn't this command work?


By the way, another idea crossed my mind.
First I install Windows 2003 server. Afterwards, I install VmWare.
Then I install Solaris and four or five of Linux distros.
Because VmWare doesn't see all those funny stuff.
What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am working with Fedora Core 5. I can't install Fedora 7 because it doesn't recognize my SATA drive. I discuss this problem with people at Fedora Forum. They have all face this problem.

One guy solved the problem by installing VmWare.

Another guy solved it in a very strange manner.
He removed the cable to the SATA drive, and started installing.
When the kernel is booting he plugged back the SATA drive. I might try in this manner.

However, I didn't find to time work with the installation of Fedora 7.

[saikee]

My Post #6 states
and then activate a Grub shell and type

geometry (hd0)

To activate a Grub shell in a root terminal you type

grub

You can try the install VMware in Win2k server to host the different systems as indicated but I haven't done it with Solaris this way. I got the feeling Solaris is not going to like it but the ultimate source of information would in the VMware forum.

On F7 I run mine in a Sata. In fact if F7 sees a Pata and it stll calls it by a Sata name like sda.

You may need to report your difficulty in more details.

[Gorky]

Thanks Saikee for the reply.

How did you install Fedora 7 without any hassle?

All right, you want to know more details about my Fedora 7 installation problem.

I have an IDE hard drive and SATA hard drive.
The SATA is the oldest SATA model. I think it is called SATA - I. It came to the market in 2005, I think. I bought it in 2005 July.

I inserted the bootable DVD and started the computer just to get the following message.
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. Loading vmlinuz ...............

2. Loading initrading ............

Ready.
---------------------------------------------------------
[ After the word 'Ready' , the computer is dead.]

Many people in the Fedora Forum got the same message. Some people in the Fedora Forum says it is a bug. I think the person or persons who made the new version were a bit careless.

If I disconnect the SATA hard drive and reboot the computer, I am in business. It recognizes my IDE hard drive and continue the installation; however, I don't want it this way. I must use my SATA hard drive.

What are your hardware?
If you have only IDE hard drive, this will work.
Do you have SATA- II hard drives on your system?

[saikee]

I have my F7 originally in an eSata which is an internal Sata leaving outside the box connected with just the Sata cable. It is just a new thing from the mobo so I gave it a try. Its advantage is to the Sata at the full internal bus speed 300Mb/s and not the throttling USB2's 480Mbit/s or 60Mb/s.

I subsequently cloned the eSata disk and put in into a caddy with a Sata II disk as I have 3 unused bays. I now run it as an ordinary internal disk. I always put my hard disks in caddies so that I can swap them in seconds.

Your problem could be related to Sata as you claim by disconnecting the Sata F7 runs successfully.

Well how about putting it to a test?

Install F7 with the Sata disconnected. Use hda as the 1st boot disk. Verify F7 wiorking happily then power down and hook up the the Sata.

You can then check if F7 can see the Sata then.

If it does you can port F7 into the Sata disk if that is what you wish to do.

I recommend you use only one partition for installing F7 (and a swap if you haven't got one yet) as it is a lot easier to migrated to a small or bigger partition if it is in a self-contained partition.

You need to amend F7's boot/grub/menu.lst (or grub.conf instead of menu.lst although I always use the former), /boot/grub/device.map and the /etc/fstab.

Have done migration like this loads of times using tips from mod here.

My current hardware (1 out of 4)
ABit AW9D-Max with 975x chipset
Core 2 Duo E6700
2Gb ram
Geforce 6700GT video.
2x500Gb Sata II

I assembled this PC not expecting it would work in Linux because the components are newish. I was anticipating trouble. To my surprise I haven't found a Linux refuse to go in yet and I have thrown in 16 distro plus one XP.

There are PC users only willing to install a Linux when the machine is so old and on it last let to a grave. I found Linux run like a sport car in a Core 2 Duo no different to Windoze.

[Gorky]

This is for the first time I heard about e SATA.
As it is a new stuff, the price tag must be very high.
Did you pay double the price of ordinary SATA-II?

[saikee]

Sata II is trading at about 70GBP in UK for a 500Gb unit.

You may have increasing difficulty to find Sata I as there is no price difference in UK. Just about any Sata I buy now would be automatically Sata II. I always go for the largest capacity possible as it works out cheaper per Gb.

I think Sata I does 150Mb/s and Sata II doubles it 300Mb/s. PATA disk as you know peaks at 133Mb/s. These are all peak rates and the actual speed is no where nearer but Sata II is faster than Sata I which is faster than the fastest Pata (ATA133) disk.

eSata is just an Sata (I or II according to your choice) inside a hard disk enclosure which is sold everywhere normally with a USB connection. The hard disk enclosure for 3.5" hard disks are always sold with a power supply. You pay marginally higher for an enclosure with a Sata connection. Think I may be able to pick up a USB enclosure for GBP12 to 15 and one with Sata connection for GBP17.

I can't confirm it myself but eSata is just a Sata connector at the mobo. You can actually run a Sata signal cable from any Sata-supported mobo to the outside and connect it to a Sata disk in an external enclosure. I actually on my table now have one run as the 5th disk in one PC on a mobo never heard of eSata. So don't lose sleep just because you haven't got eSata. You can just rig one up any time. The eSata connector just make it neater. There cannot be any speed gain because I am putting the same disk I would have used for an internal unit. I think eSata just stands for External Sata.

The thing to remember is in Sata standard there is a limit on the signal cable length so never use an extension for it. I haven't see an Sata extension cable on the market so no possibility of making such mistake yet.