SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I just got slack 9.1 and i had already used the windows 2k CD to partition my new hard disk with 2 5GB partitions and one 64GB partition, i formatted them all as NTFS so that i had a bit more space just in case, i knew i would have to reformat them anyways. well now i want to reformat them but i dont know what i have to do to reformat the 2 5GB partitions for linux, i want to do this without screwing up the data on the rest of the disk but i *could* repartition and format the whole disk as long as it doesnt have problems being reformated to a windows filesystem. i want to know if this is possiable and how i might do it.
You should be able to just put the disks in. You'll get some messages and be dropped to a command line to use (c)fdisk. Assuming the 64 gig partition is first, just delete /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda3 (but make sure you get the *right* partitions - this is just an example) and, in the simplest case, make one small partition for swap and one large partition for root - although you might want to put /home on it's on partition or do various other things - that's up to you. Just read the Slack book section on partitioning (at least) or do some searching to make sure you know how to use cfdisk or fdisk. (It's really not hard at all.) Then just follow the install - Slack will format the partitions you select in the filesystem you select (I use reiser but you can pick ext3 or others). Then it'll install the packages and so on. You don't need to repartition/format the entire disk.
well i wanted to use the two small partitions for slack, i guess for a swap and root, they're the first two partitons on the disk. so i would delete the first two partitions of the disk and then repartition that space? thanks for the help, also my other question that is kinda related is, what filesystem to use? will windows 2000 server be able to recognize them? and will slack recognize and be able to use the other filesystem when slack is on another filesystem?
Well, I suggested repartioning because 5 gigs for swap is *way, way* too much. But it wouldn't hurt anything except waste space you could use for your root partition. So you don't *have* to repartition.
Like Brane Ded says, Slack will read NTFS by default. Windows won't see the Linux partitions, though you can get - I forget what it's called but there *is* a Windows app for Linux filesystems - something with 'explore' or 'xplor' in the name. *g*
And similarly, I've used ext2, ext3, and reiser. There are others. For anything but high-grade high-stress usage, the difference isn't significant as long as you don't use ext2 - that's inferior. I just 'feel' better with reiser. Windows doesn't recognize any of them, so it doesn't matter from that angle, either.
One thing to note - some people report problems if Windows isn't on the first partition. The usual principle is to install Windows first on the first partition and Linux later on later partitions. ymmv.
I would definitely during the install delete the 2 5gig partitions and then repartitiion that space. As stated above you do not want 5 gig of swap. The standard seems to still be 2x your RAM for swap. I would do 2 other paritions / and /home .
thanks, i think i've got a good idea of what i've gotta do. just does cfdisk do partition deletion? can i just use knoppix to do that? (i realize i'd need root with knoppix but i can get it i think i remember how i got it)
thanks for all the help so far, this help is much better than anyone would get with windows....
You can read NTFS from Slack and there are some free tools on net for Windows to read ext2/3 partitions. And you don't need create swap partition you can use swap file (but i don't remember how i made it) - it's IMO better becuse slowndown isn't too big and if you find it too big or too small you can change it's size easily.
Just as an aside, I'm not sure if Windows would handle it's partition being renumbered well. In other words, if you have already installed Windows, and if it is 2 partitions that you are deleting that come before your Windows partition, then you may want to recreate only 2 partitions in that same space, so that the Windows partition is STILL the 3rd one. Because of that, I'm not sure I'd recommend a separate /home partition. Perhaps a swap partition 2 times your RAM memory, and the rest of the first 5gb (wasn't it?) as your root (/) partition would work. I may be wrong on this, but if you want to be on the safe side... Does anyone else know for sure how Windows 2K handles this?
One thing I am sure of is that while linux can READ Windows NTFS filesystems, WRITE support is experimental and is considered dangerous (and as such may not even be enabled in the kernel by default.)
The only file systems that both Linux and Windows 2K/XP can read AND WRITE out of the box are the old FAT filesystems from DOS and Windows 95/98/ME (e.g. FAT32, you may also see "vfat" as a filesystem type, which just means FAT32 (or FAT16) that happens to have long filenames on it instead of just the old 8 character long DOS style names) Sorry if I'm rambling. My point is that A) I wouldn't trust Linux to write to your NTFS Windows partition, and B) if you can't find an acceptable tool to make Windows 2K write to a Linux filesystem (e.g. ext2/3), you could make a small fourth transfer partition at the end of the drive maybe and format it with FAT32 in Windows--Linux would be able to mount and write to it as filesystem "vfat". (Ugly, but it's an idea.)
Re-lettered you mean. *g* I wonder - his Windows root must be E:. If he reformatted them under a Linux fs, Windows won't recognize any contents (or even that it's formatted) but I think it does recognize the actual partitions. So I suppose his drive would still be E: but, if Windows doesn't assign a drive letter to unformatted drives, it would slip to C:. I know I have XP on the second partition of a box and it thinks it's on C: but that's because the first partition is hidden. Flipside, if Windows *doesn't* assign drive letters to 'unusable' partitions, then he could make as many as he wants. I've had lots of Windows/Linux boxes lots of different ways but can't remember this particular issue being a factor. If you're sure they do get re-, er, lettered, then that's definitely the right option - single root and a swap.
But XP still has an assign of sorts, hidden in diskpart. Maybe that'd get around any issues?
well i think that a couple of these problems wont really effect me because my windows root is on a whole other disk, i've got a 60GB disk that i've been using before i got this new HD (80GB ), and i think that the numbering on the partition wont be a problem because when i first installed the disk with the three partitions it just showed up (even the unformatted partition but i dont think i could do anything to it) anyways i think that it'll just notice that the partitions arent there and look for new ones and it wont matter.