I'm in the process of setting up several OSs, some of which will be Linux. Acronis True Image requires that a Linux OS have a boot partition to facilitate it's own boot loader and system restoration. One Linux distro is simple enough, but what if there are several? Can all of them use the same boot partition, or will each need it's own?

EDIT: Along the same lines, the question applies to swap partitions also.

Checking the pdf manual for True Image I find (page 21):

When Acronis Startup Recovery Manager is activated, it overwrites the master boot record (MBR) with it's own boot code. If you have any third party boot managers installed, you will have to reactivate them after activating the Startup Recovery Manager, For Linux loaders (e.g. LILO and GRUB), you might consider installing them to a Linux root (or boot) partition boot record instead of MBR before activating Acronis Startup Recovery Manager.

If this is what you are referring to it does not say you MUST have a boot partition.
It is advising that IF your Linux bootloader is in the MBR it will be overwritten and you will need a way to reinstall it, usually from your install CD in a recovery mode.

Understood, but it seems like a good idea to place the Linux bootloader somewhere that it won't be overwritten. If that is done, then the question remains...one boot partion per distro, or one for all?

A shared boot partition is going to be a tougher nut to crack than separate boot partitions.
I am still going to suggest it is not necessary.
A Windows reinstall will wipe out a Linux MBR bootloader.
It is simply best to know how to access rescue media to reinstall it.
One should investigate secondary boot possibilities for any OS they install.
Creating a boot partition and installing the bootloader there is no different than installing the bootloader to your root partition rather than the MBR.
It is still necessary to have a primary means to accessing them.

I'm willing to accept your opinion of multiple boot partitions vs one, and I may be willing to accept the rest, but It is still a battle between my ignorance and my imagination. I do not really understand the Acronis boot loader...but from what you have said, it sounds as though it only works at the time of a restoration, and all of the OS's boot loaders would have to be restored separately. If that is true, then I would certainly follow your advice. I guess what is nagging at me, is that I can't understand why True Image would be setup this way. I'm not a programmer, but it seems that it wouldn't be difficult for TI to creat it's own permanent boot loader that would operate all of the OSs.

2damncommon,

Looking at the distros in your signature, you appear to be the person to ask...is there enough difference between SuSe 10.0 and 10.2 to make it worth the cost and trouble to upgrade?

I have the Acronis Disk Director and have used it for resizing NTFS partitions and etc. I prefer to use the Linux bootloaders, first LILO and currently GRUB. I also fooled with System Commander quite a while ago.
The bootloaders you installed to either a root or boot partition would remain in place if the MBR was overwritten with another bootloader. But they would be not be available without a primary bootloader. What you need to be able to do is either access an installed system with the install CD in recovery mode or possibly rewrite a primary bootloader to the MBR.
Only a primary bootloader would need to be rewritten if your Linux installs had bootloaders in their root partition. If you used the Linux bootloader from one as your primary bootloader then that is the one you would need to know how to access in recovery mode to be able to rewrite it to the MBR.
The Acronis bootloader should be able to boot the Linux partitions as long as they have Linux bootloaders in a root or boot partition.
This is entirely your call.
If you are happy with it you only need to move on when security fixes stop. If there is hardware support or new features that interest you then maybe you want to upgrade.
I do not feel I must upgrade with every release.
You can download Opensuse if price is the main obstacle. I purchased two 9.x versions but have downloaded both 10.1 and 10.2.

Bootloader, of any flavor are something that I have yet to fully understand. I keep reading what I can, and most of it makes sense, but there is always something that I miss and things goes astay. I really don't care what the bootloader is...if it works. The problems that I have had in the past were mostly of my own making, but that makes it even more annoying. Worse is the fact that if I understood better, I could fix the problems with much less trouble. But, when the OSs won't boot, I can't go online to ask questions, and I have to do whatever I have to do, which usually means alot of works. That is part of what I was hoping that TI would solve for me.I agree with your sentiments, but buying an upgrade is less of an issue than downloading one, because I have a dialup connection and I'm not willing to tieup my computer and phone line for the amount of time required. I realize that I would have to make my own decision, but what I was hoping for was your own personal opinion as to the value of the latest SuSe. I could read up on this, but I have been going too many ways at once, to do so.

Unfortuately it is a trial and error thing, trying to know enough not to screw it up.
Always use what works and you prefer.
Sorry about that.