Dual partitioning questions.

Ok, well im pretty clueless when it comes to certain things with computers. In this case its dual partitioning. Ive looked around the internet and figured out how to do it (sort of) but im still fairly uncertain of the consequences so i have a few questions.
1. Whats the best way to dual partition if i want to have windows XP installed to be able to use .exe files, bootcamp?
2.When dual partitioning what exactly is halfed? If i was to dual partition would my mac perform as well or would it use half RAM on each partition etc?
3.Can you choose how much to partition? or does it have to be half and half.
4.What disc do i need exactly for it, will it be the windows XP installation disk? (any links to where i can get one would be great!)
5.Can you undo a dual partitioning? If so, how?
6.Is this the best way to be able to use .exe files and play windows based games etc.
7.Will i only need an XP disk and bootcamp?
Thanks a lot to anyone in advance. If i think of any more questions ill ask.
Message was edited by: My3rs
Message was edited by: My3rs

My3rs,
I think you are making it much more complex than need be. If you want to Run Windows XP (or any other supported version of Windows for that matter) using Bootcamp when you run Bootcamp Assistant to set it up Bootcamp will partition your internal drive for you, all you need to do is choose how much space you want to dedicate to MS Windows.
You will need an original Windows XP license (Home or Professional) to install as that is a Microsoft product and you will be using their software. As far as I know it's not downloadable and because it's so old finding a new commercial disc of XP may be tough, I would think EBay would be the best bet if you don't already own a license. My recommendation would be to purchase Windows 7 from any computer retailer.
Regards,
Roger

Similar Messages

Data Warehouse Partitioning question

Hi All,
I have a data warehousing partitioning question - I am defining partitions on a fact table in OWB and have range partitioning on a contract number field. Because I am on 10gR2 still, I have to put the contract number field into the fact table from its dimension in order to partition on it.
The tables look like
Contract_Dim (dimension_key, contract_no, ...)
Contract_Fact(Contract_Dim, measure1,measure2, contract_no)
So my question:
When querying via reporting tools, my users are specifying contract_no conditions on the dimension object and joining into the contract_fact via the dimension_key->Contract_dim fields.
I am assuming that the queries will not use partition pruning unless I put the contract_fact.contract_no into the query somehow. Is this true?
If so, how can I 'hide' that additional step from my end-users? I want them to specify contract numbers on the dimension and have the query optimizer be smart enough to use partition pruning when running the query.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks,
Mike

I am about to start a partitioning program on my dimension / fact tables and was hoping to see some responses to this thread.
I suggest that you partition the tables on the dimension key, not any attribute. You could partition both fact and dimension tables by the same rule. Hash partitions seem to make sense here, as opposed to range or list partitions.
tck

LPAR - LOGICAL PARTITION QUESTION -

Hello SDN Experts.
LPAR (LOGICAL PARTITION QUESTION)
Our current Production Environment is running in Distributed Installation on
IBM System P5 570 Servers AIX ver 5.2, each node is running two Applications: SAP ERP 2005 SR1 (ABAP + JAVA) and CSS. (Customer Service System)
Node One
u2022     SAP Application (Central Instance, Central Services)
u2022     Oracle 9i Instance for CSS Application.
Node Two.
u2022     Oracle 10G Instance for SAP Application
u2022     CSS Application.
To improve performance we are planning to create a new LPAR for SAP.
According to the IBM HW Partner LPAR is logically isolated with different HW/SW resource(CPU/Memory /Disk resource, IP/hostname/mount point)...
Question:
I have this two possible solutions to copy SAP instances (app + db) to new LPAR, can I apply SCENARIO 2, which in my opinion is easier than SCENARIO 1.
SCENARIO 1.
In order to migrate application and database instances to the new LPAR do I need to follow the procedure explained in the guide:
(*) System Copy for SAP Systems Based on SAP NetWeaver 2004s SR1 ABAP+Java Document version: 1.1 ‒ 08/18/2006
SCENARIO 2.
After create all file systems (required in AIX) to copy data from Applications and Database Instances to their respective LPARs and change the ip address and hostnames in parameter files according to the following SAP Notes:
Note 8307 - Changing host name on R3 host
Note 403708 - Changing an IP address
Which is the best scenario SAP recommends in this case ?
Thanks for your comments.

If your system is a combined ABAP + Java instance you can´t manually change the hostname. It´s not only those places that are listed in that note but much more, partially on filesystems in .properties files, partially in the database.
Doing that manually may work but since the process is not documented anywhere and since it depends on the applications running on top of the J2EE instance it´s not supported.
For ABAP + Java instances you must use the "sapinst-way" to get support in case of problems.
See note 757692 - Changing the hostname for J2EE Engine 6.40/7.0 installation
Markus

Thumb Drive Partition Question

Is it possible to create two differently-formatted partitions on one single physical thumb drive - one as Mac OS Extended and the other as MS-DOS?

Allan - your "solution" may well be the only answer, although I hope not. I had hoped to keep physical drive switching to a minimum by dual-partitioning each individual drive (the three drives I have are for different purposes - one "work", one "school" and one "other" (basically fun stuff like music, games, etc.)).
I try to keep the above-listed functions separate. But within each function (meaning for each drive) I have a need for Mac security and reliability as well as occasional Windows portability. There seems to be a tradeoff...
Hi JohnnyAngel;
With the cost of thumb drives being so low, I think
the easiest solution is to have two; one formated DOS
and the other formated HFS+.
I think since most thumb drive come formated DOS this
solution would even solve half your problem right
away leaving you to format the other one to HFS+.
Allan

Simple UEFI GPT Dual boot with windows 8 boot partition question.

Hi everyone,
I think it's obvious from the quuestion that I'm a newbie here (and from the location of the post) but I have read (several times):
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/UEFI
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/UEFI_Bootloaders
and the incredibly helpful:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginner%27s_Guide
along with many forum posts. unfortunately this:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wi … _Dual_Boot
appears out of date and so I need to ask you fine people my question.
If I want to dual boot Arch with my Windows 8 my question is on the boot partition. I have an existing windows EFI boot partition. should I mount this partition to my "/mnt/boot/efi" folder and then copy the files to this partition when I am setting up rEFInd (my chosen bootloader from wiki page, comments/suggestions are welcome) or should I setup a separate boot partition for my arch installation. I assume from reading about rEFInd that the former is how I should do it as this seems to be how refind would be able to "see" my windows bootloader.
The reason I am double checking and asking here is I know that windows can be a temperamental beast and is very prone to not booting so I don't want to mess with the windows boot partition unduly.
Thanks in advance guys, looking forward to getting my arch working!
Last edited by crashandburn4 (2013-03-03 13:42:43)

$esp = EFI System Partition?
also, ok, gummiboot, I'm glad I can mount the esp as /boot (that was my original thought but reread the tutorial and wasn't sure) just double checking, it is the esp created by windows 8 that I mount?
in addition, as I am slightly new to this is there any tutorial that can tell me how to set up gummiboot? I've looked here:
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/gummiboot
but don't see anything in the way of detailed instructions.
from your post: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=159061
I'm gonna guess it's something like this (please let me know if this is right)
/mount $ESP /mnt/boot
pacman -S gummiboot
(after chrooting)
//exit chroot
gummiboot
*stuff saying gummiboot is not configured*
gummiboot install
is it something like that? can anyone point me towards a manual
Last edited by crashandburn4 (2013-03-03 14:58:53)

[Solved] Arch + W8 dual boot, UEFI, partitioning question

Hello,
I'm buying new laptop with preinstalled W8 (Lenovo E430) and I'm planning to dual boot. I've read Beginner's guide, Installation guide, searched forum, etc., but I'm still unsure how to deal with creating partitions for Arch while keeping Windows.
From the Beginners' Guide:
If you are intending to follow the advice to create a GPT partition table then you need to choose "Advanced" and then select "gpt" from the drop-down menu. This cannot be done if you have a pre-existing Windows installation on the drive which you wish not to destroy.
and from the Partitioning:
To dual-boot with Windows, one must use MBR.
A special exception to this rule: dual-booting Windows 64-bit using UEFI instead of BIOS, one must use GPT.
My W8 will be 64bit and also is Arch.
So, my question is. When I shrink W8 partition and create free space for Arch, do I have to choose 'gpt' option (2nd quote) or not (1st quote) for formatting? Or am I reading it totally wrong?
I would give it a try, but that destroying thing kind of scares me.
Last edited by centos (2013-06-18 19:24:58)

The wiki quotes you've presented make it look like the wiki was created with an MBR/BIOS assumption and then poorly edited to incorporate GPT/EFI information. The rules, presented in a more cohesive way, are these:
Windows ties its partition table type to the computer's firmware: under BIOS, Windows requires MBR; and under EFI, Windows requires GPT.
Linux is more flexible: It can use either MBR or GPT under BIOS. In theory, Linux can use either MBR or GPT under EFI, although many EFIs seem to require GPT, so it's best to stick with GPT on EFI-based computers.
When dual-booting, Windows is the limiting factor when it comes to partition table type.
Most EFIs include a Compatibility Support Module (CSM), which enables them to boot BIOS-based OSes. The CSM can usually be enabled or disabled in the firmware setup utility, although the details of how to do this vary from one implementation to another.
Computers that ship with Windows 8 pre-installed almost always use EFI, and therefore GPT.
Converting from MBR to GPT or vice-versa is possible with GPT fdisk (gdisk, cgdisk, or sgdisk), but this requires re-installing the boot loader for any already-installed OS(es). If Windows is one of those OS(es), it's probably not worth the effort.
GParted and parted can convert from MBR to GPT or vice-versa only by destroying existing partition entries, so you should use these tools to make such a change only on a blank disk or if you intend to lose all the existing partitions.
Since you (centos) say you're installing to a computer with a pre-installed Windows 8, you've almost certainly already got an EFI/GPT setup. Under these circumstances, you won't be choosing a partition table type unless you want to completely wipe that installation and install both OSes fresh. GParted will detect the partition table type and work with it automatically; you should not select the option to create a new partition table, which your first quote (partially) describes. You should, however, be sure that you install Arch in EFI mode and that you install an EFI-mode boot manager and/or boot loader, rather than a BIOS-mode version of GRUB. Getting an EFI-mode Windows and a BIOS-mode Linux to coexist is possible, but awkward. Converting a BIOS-mode Linux installation to boot in EFI mode is also possible, if you mistakenly install in BIOS mode; but it's usually easier to install in EFI mode to begin with. There are lots of threads here on EFI-mode Arch installations, as well as information in the Arch wiki on this topic. Unfortunately, EFI is still new enough that there are still a lot of kinks to be worked out, both in specific firmware implementations (many of them are buggy) and in OS support (which is still not as mature as is BIOS support).

[SOLVED] Longwinded beginner - Dual-boot & partition questions

Hello,
I'm interested in installing Arch Linux alongside Windows XP (dual-boot). I have little previous linux experience, although I have rented some servers that have used it in the past, as well as compiling some stuff with it while at University (studying Computer Science). Nevertheless, I am relatively confident that if I can still boot into XP, I will be able to acccustomise myself and like the fact that this distribution seems to be hands-on and leaves a lot up to the user.
I've been reading the Beginner's Guide and the dual boot guide, and I would like to get started, however, I'm not going to go ahead with this until I am certain that I will be left with a system that can still boot into Windows XP. I assume that it'll take me a while to get to grips with Arch, and in the meantime it would be massively inconvenient if I couldn't work/play/etc...
What I already know
Anyway, currently I have a 250GB hard drive that I use for Windows (as well as 3 other hard drives full of stuff). I have partitioned the drive with Windows XP on it with gparted like so:
(in order)
UNALLOCATED 32GB
SDB1 (Windows XP) 50GB
SDB2 (Downloads) 150GB
I hope to use the unallocated space to hold linux (and then have access to my other windows drives in the future, using ntfs-3g), however, I am a little confused over what partitions I 'should' have and how large they should be, considering that I will use the OS to mainly develop, browse the web, listen to music, etc...
I was thinking:
/boot -- ext2 -- 100MB
/ -- ext4 -- 15GB
swap -- -- 1GB
/home -- ext4 -- 12GB
/var -- ReiserFS -- 4GB
Questions
• Is 30GB too little, even though most of my stuff is on other NTFS hard drives?
• How large should / be? I've read that it contains /bin, /dev, /etc and others. How do I know how much space these need? Am I misunderstanding things?
• Is a /var partition unnecessary? How large should it be?
• 10GB for /home, 1GB for swap, 100MB for /boot?
• Do I need a /tmp or /usr? This is a single-user machine, but I don't want it to get messy!
• I was thinking of giving /boot ext2, and /var ReiserFS, and then giving every other partition ext4. That okay?
• Do I need to set these partitions up when installing, or can I set them up in advance with gparted - it might be simpler.
• Due to already having 2 NTFS primary partitions on the hard disk, I presume that some of the above will need to be logical partitions in an extended partition? How is this done?
Once the partitions have been set up, and linux is installed, I presume it's just a matter of completing the rest of Part I of the guide, and then ammending /boot/grub/menu.lst to include 'Windows XP'? At that point I am able to restart Windows XP, and only delve into Arch when I want to continue with the configuration, fixing, and so on...
Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks for your patience. (:
Last edited by Bedtimes (2009-09-27 14:21:55)

That's the thing, I expect that I'm doing something wrong with the GRUB loader - and I admit my hard disk layout has been quite strange for a long time before installing linux.
Basically, it currently looks like this:
/dev/sda1 ntfs Music 250GB
/dev/sdb3 ext2 /boot 120MB
/dev/dsb4 extended
---- /dev/sdb5 linux-swap 1GB
---- /dev/sdb6 ext4 / 20GB
---- /dev/sdb7 ext4 /home 12GB
/dev/sdb1 ntfs Windows XP 50GB
/dev/sdb2 ntfs Downloads 150GB
/dev/sdc1 ntfs TV & Movies 950GB
• This list is in order that the entries appear on the hard disk, hence /boot is in the first 1024 cylinders of the hard disk, but as you can see the sdb numbers are actually in the chronological order that I created them.
• I used an extended partition with logical partitions inside since I had read that there was an issue with more than 4 partitions in a hard disk, and I already had 2 NTFS partitions.
• When it asked me to install GRUB to the MBR, I installed it to SDB as opposed to SDBx as it asked me to in the manual. This is the drive that contains /boot!
• I just managed to amend something in the menu.lst, in order that I can boot into Windows XP. Therefore my machine is not totally fucked up any more. (: Unfortunately, what I changed doesn't make sense to me, since I would have expected Windows XP to be on a different hard disk.
The contents of sdb3:
grub kernel26-fallback.img kernel26.img
lost+found System.map26 umlinuz26
When typing the command /sbin/blkid:
/dev/sda1: UUID="D0..." LABEL="Music" TYPE="ntfs"
/dev/sdb1: UUID="A8..." LABEL="Windows XP" TYPE="ntfs"
/dev/sdb2: UUID="557..." LABEL="Downloads" TYPE="ntfs"
/dev/sdb3: UUID="2676..." TYPE="ext2"
/dev/sdb5: UUID="0474..." TYPE="swap"
/dev/sdb6: UUID="0886..." TYPE="ext4"
/dev/sdb7: UUID="519becf..." TYPE="ext4"
/dev/sdc1: UUID="46AC59" LABEL="TV & Movies" TYPE="ntfs"
Inside /boot/grub/menu.lst:
timeout 5
default 0
color light-blue/black light-cyan/blue
# (1) Windows XP
title Windows XP
rootnoverify (hd0,0)
chainloader +1
# (2) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux
root (hd1,5)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/0886... ro vga=773
initrd /boot/kernel26.img
# (3) Arch Linux (Fallback)
title Arch Linux (Fallback)
root (hd1,5)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/0886... ro vga=773
initrd /boot/kernel26-fallback.img
edit: I'm able to access all of the installation partitions with gparted-live's terminal (by mounting the devices I need to access into folders in my root folder), so is there anything else you want me to check/change in order to find my linux root/boot partition?
Last edited by Bedtimes (2009-09-27 12:54:24)

New to Solaris - dual boot question

I have been using OpenSolaris on my ThinkPad T400s, dual booting with Windows 7. I want to give Solaris 10 a try. I've had it running in Virtual Box under OS X for a while, and I think I'm comfortable enough to try it out on my ThinkPad. Here is my question: will the Solaris Interactive installer let me install Solaris 10 in my existing OpenSolaris partition? And if it does, will it modify the bootloader so that I can still dual boot with Windows 7? I dont want to have to destroy partitions and re-install Windows. Once its on my hard drive, I can add myself as a user, install the Intel 5300 wireless driver, etc... Anyone have any other issues with Solaris 10 on a T400s?

Okay, well as usually happens, when I resort to help I end up solving my own problem.
In this case however, I still don't have a good grasp of what is going on.
I deleted the partition table with sgdisk --zap-all /dev/sda and then used gdisk to recreate it, specifically setting the code for /dev/sda1 to ef00.
I then reformatted the FAT partition, leaving the other one alone. After mounting /dev/sda1 to /boot and reinstalling linux and grub, I ran:
grub-install --target=x86_64-efi --efi-directory=$esp --bootloader-id=arch_grub --recheck
as described in the wiki, and
grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
And it worked, including automatically detecting Windows on the other drive. Not sure what went wrong the first time but I'm glad to get it working.
Last edited by egan (2014-12-09 19:46:58)

Win XP/Win 7 dual boot question and

My replacement motherboard for my crapped out Dell one that was a replacement, crapped out the other week and it was tested with a new power supply to no avail. it was also tested in a shortcut, (connecting the two wires directly, the two that "short out" that turns on the power) and that didnt work either.. (something like that)
My options are:
buy another replacment motherboard and hope it stays working longer than the six months the other did
Buy a new computer and use my old hard drive
thus arising this question:
since the new computer will have Windows 7 on it, can I use that as a slave drive and use my primary drive (not going to loose my data and stuff) I have the primary drive as XP but the new one will use 7, when I put in the win 7 drive as a slave drive, will it boot to 7 or XP and would I have the option to dual boot, even if they are seperate drives..
I think I am writing it a confusing way but I hope you can understand what I am getting at....
Simply put--
I have XP drive
I buy new computer it has Win 7 drive
Xp drive becomes master, win 7 becomes slave
Will XP boot or Win 7 boot when its set as the slave drive? what about XP/7 dual boot? they are on seperate drives, will it let me dual boot?
I want my XP drive to boot.
I hope you can understand that..
If I can, I would like to reformat the win7 drive and just use that for storage. is that possioble?
Ethan
I just want some help or even an opinion, is that so hard to ask for?

Okay I read through your post a few times and I am still a bit confused about what your setup looks like. I am going to assume you bought a new computer with Windows 7 on it thus you DID NOT replace the motherboard on the old one. With that assumption, then your answer would be no, only Windows 7 would boot (and it might have some problems if you have it set as the slave drive). Windows XP from your old hard drive would not boot because simply put, the BIOS will not detect a proper boot.ini file and the hardware configuration (partitions and/or disk types) does not match up.
If you want to set up a dual boot, you would have to install the secondary hard drive (or partition the primary one) and perform a destructive OS restore on it AND find the drivers for it (if the manufacturer of the computer even supports it). When I used to work for the Geek Squad, numerous clients asked about this and the general consensus was that the Geek Squad strongly opposed it because of the drivers. Being that XP and 7 are a generation apart, the chances of the manufacturer of the computer or motherboard releasing drivers for both was unlikely. Sometimes the client would opt to have it done anyway but my former Precinct would always warn them that some features may not work correctly.
If you want Windows XP and Windows 7, I suggest the XP Mode that Windows Pro and Ultimate offers. You literally run Windows XP inside a window of Windows 7.
I DO NOT work for Best Buy. Whatever I post are just educated guesses or common sense.

Sharing the /home partition and general partition questions

Hello, I'm new to Arch, but have been using Linux for a few years (albeit still at a beginner level). I'm going to be reinstalling Arch on an old computer that has a 40GB main drive so dual boot a "operational" OS for day to day stuff that I want to make sure will be running well and then another OS that I can test on or just have for trying new distros. I also have an 80GB that I'll use for data (but I don't think I want that to be my home drive).
My question is: If I have two different installations of Arch, (or a second distribution) should they share the same /home partition? My thought is "no", but I didn't know.
Also, I'm planning on splitting the 40GB drive the following partitions. Do these make sense, or would there be a better way to do this?
5GB = / (OS #1)
14.5GB = /home (OS #1)
5GB = / (OS #2)
14.5GB = /home (OS #2)
1 GB = swap (both OSes)
I have an ancient P4 w/ 512 of RAM.

sharing /home drives would NOT be a good option in your case simply because you are going to use the 2nd OS as test/trials. Those other OSes may have different ways of storing config files etc which may lead to having a lot of junk to parse through. and if you ever use any configs for the Test OS, and they are somewhat in conflict with Arch - in any way - you might end up having to re-configure settings for your favorite apps in Arch.
I have a 30 GB HDD on a 10 yr old laptop which has Arch. This is the partition scheme I have
╔═[16:10]═[inxs @ arch]
╚═══===═══[~]>> df
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda3 ext3 7.0G 1.7G 5.0G 25% /
none tmpfs 125M 100K 125M 1% /dev
none tmpfs 125M 0 125M 0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda4 ext4 16G 850M 14G 6% /home
/dev/sda6 reiserfs 5.1G 558M 4.5G 11% /var
/dev/sda1 ext2 61M 12M 47M 20% /boot
╔═[21:16]═[inxs @ arch]
╚═══===═══[~]>> fdisk
Disk /dev/sda: 30.0 GB, 30005821440 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3648 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000080
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 8 64228+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 9 726 5767335 5 Extended
/dev/sda3 727 1640 7341705 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 1641 3648 16129260 83 Linux
/dev/sda5 9 73 522081 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6 74 726 5245191 83 Linux
╔═[21:18]═[inxs @ arch]
╚═══===═══[~]>>
Since you have 10GB more than I do, you can adjust accordingly and make partitions for your test OSes as well.
Last edited by Inxsible (2009-10-08 01:22:30)

Partitioning question [Resolved]

I hope this is a simple/silly question, But I'm running into some issues partitioning my drive for dual boot with Windows 7. Unfortunately, my new job requires me to use Windows so I've decided to go down the dual boot option rather than using virtualbox (due to system requirements of some of the software packages i'll be using). But anyways,
Here is what I did, in chronological order.
1. Installed Windows 7 on /dev/sda1/
2. Loaded Arch Linux Live CD (2010.05)
3. Booted to the Live CD, and began /arch/setup
4. Loaded ethernet, set the date and time, selected packages
5. Ran cfdisk using the "Manually Partition Hard Drives" option such that the cfdisk configuration looks as follows:
Name Flags Part Type FS Type [Label] Size (MB)
sda1 BOOT Primary Hidden HPFS/NTFS 435580.7*
sda2 Primary Linux 98.71*
sda3 Primary Linux 149996.21*
sda4 Primary Linux 164478.29*
The plan is to use sda2 for /boot, sda3 for /, and sda4 for /home and not use swap (I shouldn't need it).
After using cfdisk to create the new partitions, and select the FS type, as outlined in the Beginners guide, I proceeded to Step 3 of Hard drive preparation, "Manually Configure Block Devics, filesystems and mountpoints".
My understanding is that now that I've created the partitions, I must specify which partition will be /boot, /, /home, etc.
However, when I select this option, I get the following output:
I've detected you already have blockdevice definitions in place: /dev/sda raw no_label no_fs /dev/sda1 raw no_label no_fs /dev/sda2 raw no_label no_fs /dev/sda3 raw no_label no_fs /dev/sda4 raw no_label no_fs /dev/sdb raw no_label no_fs /dev/sdb1 raw no_label no_fs
Do you want to use these as a starting point? Make sure your disk(s) are partitioned correctly so your definitions can be applied on the disk. Pick 'no' when in doubt to start from scratch.
Assuming that I did partition them correctly, I selected yes to proceed. I select Partition Access Method as dev (directly by /dev/*) at which point I'm brought directly to "Manage filesystems which looks as shown below:
/dev/sda raw->no_fs
/dev/sda1 raw->no_fs
/dev/sda2 raw->no_fs
/dev/sda3 raw->no_fs
/dev/sda4 raw->no_fs
/dev/sdb raw->no_fs
/dev/sdb1 raw->no_fs
DONE _
If I select, say, /dev/sda2, which will be the /boot partition, I'm given the following message:
Do you want to have this filesystem (re)created ? If not, make sure there already is a filesystem!
I opened up a new terminal, ran fdisk -l and saw that there was indeed a /dev/sda2 which indeed is partitioned as 83, or ext3. So I hit yes. And then I get this:
Automatically picked the filesystem. It's the only option for blockdevices
At which point I can select /boot, but then nothing happens. I'm then returned to the manage filesystems page which looks exactly as it did above.
Basically my question for you guys is, what am I doing wrong? It seems to me like cfdisk is making the partitions correctly but the installer isnt able to give the partitions labels for some reason. I also tried opening a terminal and making the partitions manually via mkfs -t ext3 but that yielded the same issue as above.
Any suggestions are much appreciated. Happy Holidays.
Last edited by eldubsports (2010-12-23 23:56:48)

If I select, say, /dev/sda2, which will be the /boot partition, I'm given the following message:
Do you want to have this filesystem (re)created ? If not, make sure there already is a filesystem!
I opened up a new terminal, ran fdisk -l and saw that there was indeed a /dev/sda2 which indeed is partitioned as 83
say yes to the filesystem (re)created ...
cfdisk only creates the patition
after which you tell it the mount point & filesystem (ext2, ext3,reiser or whatever)
you dont need to manually configure block devices unless your really sure of what your doing

Partition questions for upgrade

Hi
I may choose to partition the hard drive on my mbp when upgrading from snow leopard to mavericks. I used Time Machine to backup.
Any good tutorial on partitioning and installing Mavericks?
For Mav. do I download an installer? So when actually installing it having internet connectivity isn't necessary?
If I've used Time Machine to backup, does it also backup my old Snow Leopard os?
Ok, a stupid question: I just watched this video where it appeared the guy partitioned his drive without erasing the drive. Can one do that? I'd be shocked if it's true.
SO, if I upgrade to Mavericks, I have the option to do an install just over the os I have, not a clean install, right?
best
elmer

Thanks, gents for your replies!
My original reason to upgrade was so I could upgrade to Maverick. Now I'm finding that some oldre Apps (including Photoshop.cs (Version 8) aka CS 1 and Microsoft Office X) probably aren't supported, at least that's the official line. Also, my Canon Lide 80 scanner probably isn't either.
I'd almost like to install Mavericks on top of the Snow Leopard and see what does or doesn't work, then if unhappy with the result, clean install partitions with a small (25 gigs) partition of SL and the rest to Mavericks.
But that may rang from unwise to stupid. It's just that having partitioned years ago, I found it to be a bit of a pain just having dual systems and sometimes constantly switching between the 2.
Opinions or suggestions?
Thanks again, gents, your input has been much appreciated!
elmer

HD partition questions...

Hi all,
i have questions about the partitioning of the HD. Why one shoud partition the HD? it's really important? and (if yes) how and what is the best option to do that?
thanks!

One of the reasons very early mac users partition
their 1st or 2nd internal hard disk was because at
that time, the OS was unable to read a disk, say (for
e.g.) larger than 160Gb, that means if a 160Gb disk
was installed, the mac reads it only as 80Gb (for
e.g. again), not to its full size.
That's two separate issues.
1 computers (Windows and Mac) which don't have the correct ATA controller cannot access more than 128GB in any one device. Put a 160GB drive in there, and they'll see just 128GB. It doesn't matter how it's partitioned, they won't see past the 128GB line. (This applies to older FireWire enclosures, too. Put a 160GB drive into such an enclosure and you have a 128GB drive.) Attach the same drive to a newer ATA controller, and it will see the full capacity of the drive. If a computer (or PCI controller card, or FireWire enclosure) has 'large drive support' enabled, it can see past 128GB. If it does not, it can't. All G3s (beige and B&W), plus all graphite G4s and the first generation Quicksilver G4s can't see past 128 unless you install a PCI controller card which has large drive support. Later Quicksilvers and all Macs since then can see past 128.
SCSI drives do not have this limitation. FireWire drives don't either... so long as the controller in the drive enclosure has large drive support enabled.
2 the major reason for partitioning drives before the arrival of HFS+ was that HFS was not designed for large drives, where 'large' is 'more than 500MB'. (That's megabyte, not gigabyte.) HFS was designed in 1984-5, when a big hard drive was 20MB. (I have files larger than that, now.) There were a fixed number of 'sectors' assigned to the drive, and that was the smallest allocable block which could be written or read from the drive. 500MB drives stored eight bytes per sector, so a file which had one single character in it would take up 8 bytes. 500MB drives also used all the blocks available. Anything bigger than 500MB used the same number of blocks, no more could be allocated under HFS, and merely made them bigger. This meant that a 5GB drive had 80 byte sectors. A 50GB drive had 800 byte sectors. A file which had a single character on it would take up 800 bytes on a 50GB drive, unless the drive was partitioned into smaller logical volumes. If you have a lot of small files, you will be wasting a vast amount of disk space, as files which were really a few bytes in size would be eating hundreds of bytes of space. OS X is a UNIX. UNIX systems have swarms of small files. HFS+, like HFS, also has a limited number of blocks available. However, that number is considerably larger than the 65,535 blocks available to HFS. (I think it's 4,194,303, but I could be wrong.) HFS+ volumes use 8, or even 4 or 2, byte sectors, even for drives whose capacities are measured in hundreds of gigabytes. A small file takes up a whole lot less space. Back when HFS+ first came out, I backed up two separate HFS partitions. Both were 4.25GB in size, both had in excess of 3 GB of stuff on them. I reformatted the drive to one 8.5 GB partition, and restored the files to the single partition. The data took up less than 4.5GB instead of the 6.5-7GB it had taken up under HFS.
If you do a get info on a file, the Finder will report two sizes: the size the file is, and how much space it takes up on the drive. A good way to see the difference between HFS and HFS+ file systems is to do get infos on the same file on a 10GB or larger partition formatted HFS, and on a similar size partition formatted HFS+.
Partitioning the drive also prevent problems like a
total failure of the entire disk and lost all data,
If you have a physical drive problem you'll lose everything from all partitions. It'd be better to have different drives; it's not likely that two drives will fail at the same time.
and also accessing a smaller partition is faster.
But with modern OS technology like OS X and with
bigger better and faster hard drives, there really
isn't a need to partition a drive anymore.
Some people say that there are still reasons to partition a drive. if, for example, you want to set up a dual boot system, the easiest way is to have two partitions. I have the WinBox sitting next to my eMac configured with partitions for WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, WinServer2003, and Ubuntu Linux. Because it's a lot easier to set different actual drives to boot up on my Mac, I don't bother partitioning it. If I did, I'd probably have a partition for the system, so that if something goes belly-up in the system I can reformat it and reinstall without affecting anything else, plus a partition for my apps and data. Or maybe a partition for my apps and a separate partition for my data. That'd make backing up a snap. What I've done is to just have one partition... and to back up the whole thing to a separate drive. FireWire drives are cheap.
But do remember to practice the good habit of
backing up your data, because partition or
not, you would never know when a drive may fail on
you.
There are two types of hard drive:
1 those which have failed
2 those which haven't failed... yet.
if you want to keep something, back it up. If you really want to keep something, back it up twice, on different media. (Such as a hard drive and a DVD). If you're truly paranoid about losing something, back it up three or more times. If it's not backed up, you will lose it sooner or later. All it takes is one lightening strike, or a drunk hitting an utility pole and dropping the 24kV primary distribution line on top of the 400v secondary distribution line and sending 24 thousand volts at 20 amps down the 400v line... (Yes, that's happened to me. Yes, I had backups, so data loss was minimal. Yes, the computers were fried, as were a lot of other things. Ever seen a surge protector and a UPS which have been hit by 24,000 volts? No, the insurance company was not happy.)

Partitioning questions with windows

i want install windows on my mbp so i can run solidworks and other programs that aren't compatible with mac os. i would also install microsoft office for windows. my question is if i'm booted in mac os could i access the files saved in windows partition (like solidworks files, office files, etc)? not that i need to open them or anything but if i wanted to put them on a USB or move them somewhere, could i do that?

You can also run Windows concurrently with OS X as an alternative to Boot Camp's dual boot setup.
Virtualization for OS X:
     1. Parallels Desktop for Mac and Windows XP, Vista Business,
         Vista Ultimate, or Windows 7. Parallels is software
         virtualization that enables running Windows concurrently
         with OS X.
     2. VM Fusion and Windows XP, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate,
         or Windows 7. VM Fusion is software virtualization that
         enables running Windows concurrently with OS X.
     3. VirtualBox is an Open Source freeware virtual machine such
         as VM Fusion and Parallels that was developed by Solaris.
         It is not as fully developed for the Mac as Parallels and VM
         Fusion.
Note that VirtualBox, Parallels, and VM Fusion can also run other operating systems such as Linux, Unix, OS/2, Solaris, etc. There are performance differences between dual-boot systems and virtualization. The latter tend to be a little slower (not much) and do not provide the video performance of the dual-boot system. See MacTech Labs- Virtualization Benchmarks, January 2013 | MacTech for comparisons of Boot Camp, Parallels, and VM Fusion. Benchmarks of all of the above can be found in Benchmarking Parallels, Fusion, and VirtualBox Against Boot Camp - The Mac Observer.

Recovery Partition Questions

I'm trying to install windows 7 via bootcamp but the disk utility cannot partition the drive because it is fragmented.
the error message says to reformat the drive.
I'm ok with doing this but i have a few quesitons and want some clarity:
1) I'm fully backing up my computer with time machine
2) I have Lion, so by restarting and holding command+r I'll access the Recovery Partition?
3) HERE IS MY MAIN QUESTION, if I select "reinstall OS X" will it reformat my drive??? This is my main issue so I want to make sure it actually reformats the drive into a non fragmented drive.
4) I do not have a bootable OS X disk, but because this is lion it will download and reinstall the os x over the internet correct (through my apple ID login)??
5) To restore my back up, I wait until the new os x is finished installing, restart then access the Recovery Partition again and select "Restore From Time Machine Backup" correct??
or do I:
1) Back up with time machine,
2) restart and hold " command+r"
3) erase drive with disk utility,
4) exit disk utility
5) Select "reinstall OS X" which will reinstall Lion (i have a pre mountain lion comp)
6) select "Restore From Time Machine Backup"
Thanks -Ian

1) Back up with time machine,
2) restart and hold " command+r"
3) erase Macintosh HD partition with disk utility,
4) exit disk utility
5) select "Restore From Time Machine Backup", without reinstalling
6) Choose your last backup date.
If you select "reinstall OS X", you will use the Setup Assistant (the "Migration Assistant") at the first boot on the new system.

Dual partitioning questions.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for