 |
Linux Format forums
Help, discussion, magazine feedback and more
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Marrea
LXF regular
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ram wrote: | | My preferred way of multi booting is to keep Linux & Windows on different drives and using the motherboards bios to select which OS I wish to use. |
Yes, my preferred solution any time for a desktop - but not so easy on a laptop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ram
LXF regular
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:44 pm
Posts: 1547
Location: Guisborough
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marrea wrote: | | Ram wrote: | | My preferred way of multi booting is to keep Linux & Windows on different drives and using the motherboards bios to select which OS I wish to use. |
Yes, my preferred solution any time for a desktop - but not so easy on a laptop. |
I am lucky in that I only need one OS on my laptop, currently Ubuntu 10.04.
_________________
Ubuntu LXDE 12.04 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8000
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marrea wrote: | | Ram wrote: | | My preferred way of multi booting is to keep Linux & Windows on different drives and using the motherboards bios to select which OS I wish to use. |
Yes, my preferred solution any time for a desktop - but not so easy on a laptop. |
Or if you want to install more operating systems than you have hard drives.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram
LXF regular
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:44 pm
Posts: 1547
Location: Guisborough
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nelz wrote: | | Marrea wrote: | | Ram wrote: | | My preferred way of multi booting is to keep Linux & Windows on different drives and using the motherboards bios to select which OS I wish to use. |
Yes, my preferred solution any time for a desktop - but not so easy on a laptop. |
Or if you want to install more operating systems than you have hard drives. |
That's why I said Linux & Windows. You can still have multi OSes of the same kind on the separate drives leaving XP / Vista / Win 7 or Win 8 to play nicely with MS boot loader on the Windows disk and GRUB on the MBR of the Linux disk.
_________________
Ubuntu LXDE 12.04 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8000
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've only found multi-booting to be problematic when it involves multiple Linux systems. One Linux and one Windows is the setup that all distro installers have handled without any trouble.
Fortunately, GRUB2 has got rid of most of these problems, as it now takes care of setting up the multi-boot environment instead of relying on each distro installer to do the right thing.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram
LXF regular
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:44 pm
Posts: 1547
Location: Guisborough
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nelz wrote: | | I've only found multi-booting to be problematic when it involves multiple Linux systems. One Linux and one Windows is the setup that all distro installers have handled without any trouble. |
I never really had a problem with multi-booting Linux, except with opensuse not reading the bios/drive configure correctly when installing the GRUB. Which used to a quick fix by edit the GRUB Menu.
Since Vista MS have changed how they install their OS (pre installed) which can cause problem with adding Linux on the same drive.
| nelz wrote: |
Fortunately, GRUB2 has got rid of most of these problems, as it now takes care of setting up the multi-boot environment instead of relying on each distro installer to do the right thing. |
I've not tried Windows / Linux on the same drive for 2 years since testing for Ubuntu 10.04, which brought GRUB2 and ext4 which I could not install along side each other on the same drive. Hence my move to separate drive on my last rebuild.
_________________
Ubuntu LXDE 12.04 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nuke
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:11 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Chepstow, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: Smart Boot Manager = EASYbcd ? |
|
|
I also recently did a fresh install of OpenSuse and, although I do not remember the details I did not have that problem. I use Smart Boot Manager http://sourceforge.net/projects/btmgr/ (OS neutral, open source, sounds like EASYbcd is equivalent) in my MBR, and I made the Suse install put its GRUB in its own partion's boot sector.
My Smart Boot Manager points to two GRUBs in the boot sectors of two Linux partitions, to ntldr in the Windows partition, and also in my case to the boot sector of a DOS partion. In fact, the GRUBs also point to ntldr in the Windows partition, but that is redundant.
| Marrea wrote: | | on my multi-boot Windows XP/Linux computer I always like Windows ntldr to be in charge |
You've got to be kidding. There is no way I would let Windows be in charge of anything, except its own partition. Otherwise it is in a strong cage.
| Bruno wrote: | | One thing I don't like is that when I install openSUSE .. I get entries in the GRUB menu for non-booting Windows partitions ... presumably just because they are on NTFS partitions. I can't remember how well it does with adding entries for other Linux distros, as I am so used to fixing the menu.list file after installation that I usually delete extra entries during installation. |
I don't see a problem, you edit out the redundant entries in menu.lst. Five minute job. After a partition scan with Smart Boot Manager there is a similar mess, but bring up its control menus and you can delete or rename them to your heart's content. There are much harder things than that to do during an installation, I find (like I spent 2 evenings with OpenSuse getting the Nvidia driver to work, plus then getting a printer and scanner to work).
| Bruno wrote: | | I'm thinking that in a multi-boot scenario, the boot loader really should have it's own partition and be independent of all of the host OSes but be able to communicate with them as necessary (like during installation). |
A whole partition just for a boot manager? Very retro - OS/2 Boot Manager did that. No need, the MBR is only, AFAIR, 512 bytes, but all the remainder of that first cylinder of the first platten (first track if you like) of the HD is otherwise unused. Modern disks have so many bytes on that track, it is effectively a small unused partition in addition to the four permitted primary partitions and it has plenty of room for boot management software.
_________________
Unsolved Mysteries of the Universe No 8 :-
Why did they do away with sinks with integral splashbacks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marrea
LXF regular
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Smart Boot Manager = EASYbcd ? |
|
|
| Marrea wrote: | | on my multi-boot Windows XP/Linux computer I always like Windows ntldr to be in charge |
That's my choice.
| Nuke wrote: | | There is no way I would let Windows be in charge of anything, except its own partition. Otherwise it is in a strong cage. |
That's your choice.
I'm not arguing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruno
LXF regular
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nelz wrote: | | Bruno wrote: | | I'm thinking that in a multi-boot scenario, the boot loader really should have it's own partition and be independent of all of the host OSes but be able to communicate with them as necessary (like during installation). Can GRUB 2 do this? |
GRUB1 can do it, the initial bootloader code is installed to the MBR, with a pointer to the partition that holds the rest of its files. This can be on any partition with a filesystem readable by GRUB. It's more useful with GRUB1 than GRUB2 because the latter can regenerate its menus automatically. |
Hi nelz, that's good to know about GRUB 1. Presumably on GRUB's boot screen, one can enter the GRUB CLI and customise the partition to which the MBR code points, am i correct? You say GRUB 2 can regenerate its menus automatically. How/when exactly does it do this? Say if I had Windows on sda1, Linux A on sda2 and was installing Linux B on sda3. Would I select no boot loader during the installation of Linux B then on rebooting, would the GRUB 2 installed with Linux A pick up the new OS or would I have to boot Linux A and run the GRUB updater from there?
paulm and Nuke I currently don't practise using a whole partition for a bootloader but with use of either logical partitions in an extended partition, LVM or a GPT type partition table, surely a whole partition for the bootloader isn't too extravagant? As I see it, the advantages of this scenario are two-fold. One, that booting OSes is not reliant on the content of partitions belonging to other OSes (in the scenario above, after installation of Linux B, wiping sda2 (Linux A) for, say, use as a data partition would wipe the boot menu entries for Linux B and Windows). And two, that the boot loader could be asked by new OSes during installation to add their menu entry without disturbing data in a partition of another OS (not really necessary if GRUB 2 does update by scanning for new installations on boot but a nice feature if it has to be updated from another, running OS).
| Nuke wrote: | | Bruno wrote: | | One thing I don't like is that when I install openSUSE .. I get entries in the GRUB menu for non-booting Windows partitions ... presumably just because they are on NTFS partitions... |
I don't see a problem, you edit out the redundant entries in menu.lst. Five minute job. After a partition scan with Smart Boot Manager there is a similar mess, but bring up its control menus and you can delete or rename them to your heart's content... |
The problem isn't technological because, as you demonstrate, it can be sorted out, made to work as one desires. The problem is one of inelegance. We should strive for not mere functional solutions to our computing problems but for solutions that are elegant. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating complexity or over-engineering, but think how a newbie would feel at having to, or wanting to, tidy their boot menu. I know that it's provided free of charge but if we want to go world domination, we need elegance in our approaches to problems. Like them or not, elegance in product design is one reason why a certain fruit-branded tech company is raking it in at the moment.
Thanks for the discussion so far, folks. I'd better get some work done now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8000
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been a while since I installed GRUB1, but AFAIR you enter the GRUB shell and run
| Code: | root (hd0,0)
setup (hd0) |
to install GRUB in the MBR of sda pointing to sda1.
Generating menus in GRUB2 is done by running
as root. Ubuntu derivatives have update-grub, which is just a one line script to run grub-mkconfig, directing its output to /boot/grub/grub.cfg.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nuke
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:11 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Chepstow, UK
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: Partitions |
|
|
| Bruno wrote: | | I'm thinking that in a multi-boot scenario, the boot loader really should have it's own partition and be independent of all of the host |
| .. and then wrote: | paulm and Nuke I currently don't practise using a whole partition for a bootloader but with use of either logical partitions in an extended partition, LVM or a GPT type partition table, surely a whole partition for the bootloader isn't too extravagant?
|
I am a partition freak and currently have 17 partitions on three drives, so yes I could afford to give up the first primary partion on the first drive (it would have to be there) to a bootloader. However I do have a personal aversion to logical partitions, which are a fudge, and am working back to 12 partitions, 4 primaries per drive. The 4 primary limitation is a deplorably tenacious survivor of early PC architecture.
I used OS/2 once on a single drive, Boot Manager on the first partition, and multi-booting to OS/2, Windows, and DOS meant that with data and swap partitions I was well into logicals  OS/2 itself, my main OS, had to be on a logical which seemed like a kind of insult to it 
| Bruno wrote: | | As I see it, the advantages of this scenario [boot manager in its own partition] are two-fold. One, that booting OSes is not reliant on the content of partitions belonging to other OSes ..... And two, that the boot loader could be asked by new OSes during installation to add their menu entry without disturbing data in a partition of another OS |
Perhaps I was not clear enough. The first track on each HD is an undocumented 5th primary partition (RMS might say it was the 0th). Once booting is done it is never touched again in a session unless you use a hardware-level command such as dd. That first track is big enough to take a sizeable chunk of boot management code, and that is where Smart Boot Manager and (I gather) EasyBCD reside. The BIOS only reads the first 512 bytes of it, and in DOS (and Windows?) that bit of code chains to the Windows or DOS partition boot sector, which carries on booting. The rest of that first track is wasted space. However, with Smart Boot Manager (and I gather EasyBCD) that first 512 bytes contains code to load and execute the rest of the track as well, which contains their boot manager as an app.
I entirely agree that the boot manager should be in its own partition and be independent of the OS's on their partitions. SBM (and EasyBCD) are exactly that and do exactly that. As I said, they live on the first track of the first HD which is effectively a 5th primary partition. I can install Linux distros to my heart's content on my other 17 partitions, and as long as I can tell them to keep their dirty, GRUBby, customised boot manager/loader to themselves, on their own partition, and leave my SBM on my first HD track alone, it stays that way. Just in case they don't though, I do have a dd copy of my first track that I could restore from.
Of course, a Windows (or DOS) installation tries to overwrite the MBR with its own bit of chaining code, but I know how to stop that particular piece of Microsoft arrogance. But the general advice is to install Windows first (as it usually is on a pre-loaded high street PC) so that this can be corrected by the subsequent Linux installation.
| Bruno wrote: | | One thing I don't like is that when I install openSUSE .. I get entries in the GRUB menu for non-booting Windows partitions ... presumably just because they are on NTFS partitions... |
| Nuke wrote: | | I don't see a problem, you edit out the redundant entries in menu.lst. Five minute job. |
| Bruno wrote: | | The problem is one of inelegance. ... think how a newbie would feel at having to, or wanting to, tidy their boot menu. I know that it's provided free of charge but if we want to go world domination, we need elegance in our approaches to problems. |
I understand your point. My point was that there are areas of Linux in greater need of attention. Neverthless, Smart Boot Manager could do with an update, the current version is 10 years old, although it still works even on my 64 bit processor with a mix of SATA and PATA drives. Armed with Mike Sauders' assembly tutorial, perhaps I should have a go myself :
_________________
Unsolved Mysteries of the Universe No 8 :-
Why did they do away with sinks with integral splashbacks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8000
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
If your BIOS is recent enough, you may be better of doing away with DOS partition tables and using GPT partitioning, which doesn't have the four partition limit.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruno
LXF regular
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nelz thanks for the info. Nuke fair points made, I think the number of partitions you have puts you in the power user category  . I guess my approach is soften idealistic rather than dealing with what the situation is. There are definitely other areas more in need of work than booting, but I feel that with a little effort, this is one could be tidied up completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
