LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Complete CCNA, CCNP & Red Hat Certification Training Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-31-2004, 11:21 PM   #1
dtk69
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: Mandrake 10
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
Installing Mandrake 10...


Yay my first post
I plan to dualboot WinXP and Mandrake 10. Ive got WinXP on my 80g primary master and ive just pulled an old 4g drive out of and old computer and its on the secondry master. I plan to install mandrake on this. I was just wondering if anyone had any tips or anything i shoul look out for with partitioning, installing etc. Ive got Partition Magic if i need it. Thanks...
 
Old 07-31-2004, 11:47 PM   #2
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377
check-out this thread, it might have something useful... it's someone we're helping-out with mandrake...

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=210828

just my two cents...
 
Old 08-01-2004, 12:22 AM   #3
Linux24
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 30
I have a 60GB HDD. I used Partition Magic 8 to resize my Windows partition from the full 60 down to just 30 GB. I've never used more than 15GB, so I think I'm safe. I divided up the remaining 30GB as such:

10GB = \usr mount point
500 MB = swap partition
almost 20GB = \home mount point.

I'm planning on gradually migrating away from Windoze, which I am disgusted with. I'm tired of product activation keys and rumors that Microsoft will figure out a way to further invade my PC with their controlling junk.

That's a long story. Short version: You need more than 4GB for Mandrake 10 if you plan to play with everything and have data on the partition.
 
Old 08-01-2004, 01:27 AM   #4
ksgill
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu Jaunty (9.04)
Posts: 1,044

Rep: Reputation: 45
<quote> That's a long story. Short version: You need more than 4GB for Mandrake 10 if you plan to play with everything and have data on the partition. </quote>

That's not true.. all system files etc should be under 2 Gigs and you can always use windows partition to save files etc. Go ahead and try it.
 
Old 08-01-2004, 01:47 AM   #5
dtk69
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: Mandrake 10
Posts: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Just installed, looks like its working fine. Iv´e just installed firefox successfully. BTW iv´e got a ~15g FAT32 partition on my 80g drive if i need it.
 
Old 08-01-2004, 03:30 AM   #6
january
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
I've done the same thing like you,
what i did was defrag the hard disk then using fdisk to make
extra partition for mandrake installation.
 
Old 08-01-2004, 09:35 AM   #7
ksgill
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu Jaunty (9.04)
Posts: 1,044

Rep: Reputation: 45
see i told you
 
Old 08-01-2004, 09:41 AM   #8
Linux24
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Jatt_thugz
you can always use windows partition to save files etc. Go ahead and try it. [/B]
You cannot save files to a Windows XP partition under Mandrake 10 - NTFS5 is read only. You cannot modify, edit, save, rename, move, or do anything other than read the files that are already in Windows.
 
Old 08-01-2004, 09:44 AM   #9
Linux24
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by january
I've done the same thing like you,
what i did was defrag the hard disk then using fdisk to make
extra partition for mandrake installation.
You do not have to defrag a hard disk running Windows XP. Defrag is only provided to make people feel better. Windows XP and requires some heavy-duty hardware to run. If you have the minimum system requirements, your system is fast enough that defragging provides no performance gains. Also, it is not necessary to defrag a partition before you resize it using a tool like Partition Magic. A partition is simply data - where the data is located physically within the partition is irrelevant to resizing it. Plus, under NTFS5, defragging does not move data around that much - and depending on the tool you use, might actually move significant portions to the back 40 of the partition, which, if you really did need to defrag, would make your situation worse.

Luckily, defragging is an outdated concept and no one with a Pentium IV or Athlon XP or better system should ever waste their time on this silly activity.
 
Old 08-02-2004, 05:20 AM   #10
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally posted by Linux24
You do not have to defrag a hard disk running Windows XP. Defrag is only provided to make people feel better. Windows XP and requires some heavy-duty hardware to run. If you have the minimum system requirements, your system is fast enough that defragging provides no performance gains. Also, it is not necessary to defrag a partition before you resize it using a tool like Partition Magic. A partition is simply data - where the data is located physically within the partition is irrelevant to resizing it. Plus, under NTFS5, defragging does not move data around that much - and depending on the tool you use, might actually move significant portions to the back 40 of the partition, which, if you really did need to defrag, would make your situation worse.

Luckily, defragging is an outdated concept and no one with a Pentium IV or Athlon XP or better system should ever waste their time on this silly activity.
you should ALWAYS defrag your windows partition before performing a resize... it's called COMMON SENSE...

it doesn't matter what kinda CPU you have, fragmentation affects the hard disk's efficiency just the same... it's not a CPU issue, it's a FILESYSTEM issue...

NTFS and FAT32 have serious fragmentation issues, and it's very recommened to perform defrags every once in a while (milage varies depending on usage) to make sure everything is tight...


Last edited by win32sux; 08-02-2004 at 05:21 AM.
 
Old 08-02-2004, 08:21 AM   #11
Linux24
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by win32sux
you should ALWAYS defrag your windows partition before performing a resize... it's called COMMON SENSE...
Not, it is not common sense. NTFS5, the filesystem with WIndowsXP, does not completely defragment the way that old FAT partitions used to defragment. If you defragment an NTFS, it does not move all data to the front of the disk, clearing the back of the disk for a safer resize. It merely puts all files within closer proximity to each other.

Also, it does not defragment the page file (swap file). You have to buy a third party application to do that and reboot to accomplish it, or turn off virtual memory settings in order to defragment it.

So, if you defragment your Windows XP partition, you will receive ZERO benefit to performing a resize. In fact, if you use Norton Speeddisk to do it, it may move a lot of files to the back of the partition, actually increasing your risk before a partition resize.

Bottom line: Defragging an NTFS5 partition before a resize = no value at all.

Quote:
it doesn't matter what kinda CPU you have, fragmentation affects the hard disk's efficiency just the same... it's not a CPU issue, it's a FILESYSTEM issue...

NTFS and FAT32 have serious fragmentation issues, and it's very recommened to perform defrags every once in a while (milage varies depending on usage) to make sure everything is tight... [/B]
You are correct that the CPU does not matter, but the hard drive hardware *does* matter. Most big, speedy hard drives pump data through so fast these days that tests performed by experts show little to no performance gains following a defrag. Back when you had a 486 100mhz with a slow, slow, slow hard drive, defragging could really help. But these days? It doesn't help at all.

Plus there is the added fact that NTFS5 does not fragment the way that previous versions of Windows did. NTFS5 is the filesystem under Windows XP. But even when it is totally fragmented, it runs no more slowly than it does following a perfect defrag with a page file blowout and reboot. That's because the minimum hardware requirements for XP are greater than the maximum hardware that can benefit from a defrag.

I've run sysmark tests myself before and after a full defrag using three different products, and defragging did not help performance, and did not move data to the front fo the hard drive, as it used to ten years ago.

Defragmentation is no longer a serious issue.
 
Old 08-02-2004, 10:10 AM   #12
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally posted by Linux24
It merely puts all files within closer proximity to each other.
actually, windows xp does this every three days on it's own... it doesn't depend on you actually doing the defrag...

Quote:
So, if you defragment your Windows XP partition, you will receive ZERO benefit to performing a resize.
okay, i'm intrigued... could you please post a couple links to some respectable sites that talk about this??

Quote:
Back when you had a 486 100mhz with a slow, slow, slow hard drive, defragging could really help. But these days? It doesn't help at all.
okay, i'll wait for some good links about this, as i find it quite hard to believe and not in sync with what my experience has been with windows...

Quote:
NTFS5 is the filesystem under Windows XP.
yes, it's also the filesystem for windows 2000...

Quote:
But even when it is totally fragmented, it runs no more slowly than it does following a perfect defrag with a page file blowout and reboot. That's because the minimum hardware requirements for XP are greater than the maximum hardware that can benefit from a defrag.
really?? that's not what microsoft says:

Quote:
Even though the disk layout optimization does insure some files will be defragmented, it is not a complete substitute for fully defragmenting the disk. Users should still defragment their drives regularly.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...benchmark.mspx

Quote:
All Windows NT® and Windows 2000 file types—File Allocation Table (FAT) and NTFS file system (NTFS)—are susceptible to fragmentation.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...int/defrag.asp

Quote:
Because FAT and NTFS disks can deteriorate and become badly fragmented over time, defragmentation is vital for optimal system performance.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...int/defrag.asp
 
Old 08-02-2004, 10:44 AM   #13
Linux24
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 30
None of what you posted seems relevant to me.

1. Windows Xp defrag does not move files to the front of the partition, therefore it doesn't help before a resize.

2. Third party defrag tools often move files tothe back of the partition, making a resize following this activity more risky.

http://www.techbuilder.org/article.htm?ArticleID=47626

He points out that you don't get performance gains from defragging these days.

The only benefits he claims from it are:

1. Possibly easier to recover data from a dead disk drive if files are more contiguous (I doubt this is significant)

2. May reduce heat and wear & tear on the disk drive if it has less seeking to do during operation (I doubt this is significant as well)

When you defrag before resizing your partition, the only thing you are accomplishing is perhaps a 5% increased chance that if you screw up your hard drive, some computer store will be able to mount the drive and recover the data from it for you.

I'm trying to imagine scenarios involving resizing where heat from seeking would be an issue. I can think of none. If your drive is in this bad of shape, go buy a new one. They are really cheap.

I'm trying to think of scenarios where something would happen to your hard drive that would leave the drive operational enough to have someone attempt data recovery from it, and the only thing I can think is "back up your system" instead of defragging. It's faster, and the recovery is cheaper.

Maximum PC has run into this question several times in recent issues. They've been telling people that defragging is more cost than benefit in most cases. I agree with them. My own experience with sysmark shows performance gains, but they are statistically insignificant. <1% speed improvement.

You gain more speed improvement from defragging the paging file. But why do this? Anyone smart enough to load Linux probably has plenty of ram on their box anyway, so just delete the file by turning off virtual memory, reboot, turn it back on, and reboot again, and it's back and totally empty. That's much faster than defragging it, which seems to take forever on a 60GB HDD.

I'd rather just burn off a few DVD's and go ahead and do the resize without any fear of losing any data. I don't believe the claims of heat/increased seeking wearing down the drive. If you buy a good one, it should not be significant anyway. And instead of defragging, run chkdsk from a command prompt. That's actually of value, since a disk error could cause the resize to become a format.

So, I don't see what you gain by defragging before you resize a partition. The only potential benefit is that Windows will run insignificantly faster or that Windows will perhaps put less wear on your hard drive.

I think Microsoft provides the tool and the advice mostly for legal reasons. Linux and Apple fans would blame Microsoft's unchecked file fragmentation for data and hardware damage if Microsoft did not provide a tool for handling defragmentation, and it would become one of those many "Windows issues".

But hey, it's your drive. If it makes your heart beat slower before you resize your partition, then by all means, do it. I didn't. My partition resized just fine without any damage at all.
 
Old 08-02-2004, 12:35 PM   #14
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377
nice article, i sure am glad i don't have to worry about all that windows crap anymore... LOL...

it's nice not having to EVER run a defrag... long live ReiserFS!!!

=)


by the way, i'm still waiting for evidence that NOT running a defrag before doing a windows partition resize is better than running it... without this sorta evidence, advising people to not run a defrag seems really irresponsible on your behalf... no matter what some weird "tips and tricks" article says...

it's always better to be safe than sorry...
 
Old 08-02-2004, 12:48 PM   #15
J.W.
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Boise, ID
Distribution: Mint
Posts: 6,642

Rep: Reputation: 85
My 2 cents -- I agree with win32sux. Claiming that the performance of a seriously fragmented system will be equal to a perfectly unfragmented one stretches credibility, due to the simple fact that the greater the fragmentation, the more I/O operations will be needed. Opening a file that requires, say, 1 or 2 read operations will obviously be much faster than opening a file that requires, say, 300 read operations. I'd say that unless you are willing to assert that a hard drive will always take a fixed amount of time to retrieve a file, regardless of the number physical disk accesses it needs to perform, a fragmented system will necessarily be slower than an non-fragmented one. (Granted, in terms of real time, the apparent difference may be minor, maybe 1 second vs 2.5 seconds.)

As for resizing prior to repartioning, I similarly agree with win32sux. Perhaps the XP defrag process does not attempt to relocate all the files at the front of the drive, but in order to put the pieces in "closer proximity" to one another, they are being moved, and as a result, you would be increasing the probability for maximizing the amount of contiguous free space on the disk. In other words, rather than having files scattered throughout the disk, defragging will have the tendency to consolidate the files in such a way that the amount of contiguous space at the back of the drive is maximized.

It's certainly possible that if an XP system was using only a small amount of the disk space in the first place (say, 20% of the disk) then the need or possible benefit to doing a defrag is probably limited, due to the fact that there is already a large amount of contiguous free space available. However, for a system that is using most of the disk space, and has a large number of signficantly fragmented files, a defrag is beneficial in terms of increasing the contiguous free space.

Again, just my 2 cents. -- J.W.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Installing Mandrake 10.1 zathrus Mandriva 3 02-28-2005 07:29 PM
Installing Mandrake w/o CD agentscott00 Linux - Newbie 1 10-11-2004 01:48 AM
Installing Mandrake 9.2 Z3r01 Linux - Newbie 4 03-06-2004 06:06 PM
installing mandrake nathan15243 Linux - Newbie 13 11-23-2003 11:40 AM
qt-2.3.2 installing on mandrake 8.2 unknown_errors Linux - Software 0 06-19-2002 01:25 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration