• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Disk question

J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
that shows normal operation - no error.

Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
> that shows normal operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Try using Seagate's Disc Wizard to format the hard drive using the long
method. That sometimes will sort out bad blocks. It will take hours.

--
Alias
 
B

Bob I

Flightless Bird
Two out of three say there are no problems. Perhaps the Fedora is confused?

On 6/12/2010 7:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
> that shows normal operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"John B. slocomb" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ntv61651hi39dbup2frf6855fg6crhb6v9@4ax.com...
> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
> that shows normal operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

You could try the Seagate diagnostics and see what it says:
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...toid=720bd20cacdec010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD

--
SC Tom
 
P

Percival P. Cassidy

Flightless Bird
On 06/12/10 08:40 am, John B. slocomb wrote:

> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
> that shows normal operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Some Seagate drives manufactured during the last year or two have bad
firmware. Go to the Seagate Web site and enter the model# and serial# to
find out whether yours needs an update.

Perce
 
C

Canuck57

Flightless Bird
On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
boot loader.

If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
utilities that might help.

> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

Always good to replace disks early.

> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
> that shows normal operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
fail shortly there after.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/12/2010 1:11 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
>> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
>> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
>> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
>> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
>> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
>> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
> programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
> So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
> boot loader.
>
> If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
> ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
> utilities that might help.
>
WoW! You really have no idea what the OP is talking about do you. You
must be drunk or on drugs or both and your MS hatred has taken over your
little, dysfunctional brain.
But we've all seen this bullshit dreck from you in the past.
Get some help asshole.

>> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
>> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> Always good to replace disks early.
>
>> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
>> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
>> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
>> that shows normal operation - no error.
>>
>> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
>> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
> Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend towards
> saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace it. I
> have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then fail
> shortly there after.
>
 
T

Trimble Bracegirdle

Flightless Bird
I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
action.
You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
Sounds like Windows.
You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
(\__/)
(='.':]
(")_(") mouse
 
P

Parko

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:40:19 +0700, John B. slocomb sgraffire:

> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test utility,
> which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No Errors" The same
> utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and that shows normal
> operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

To check the disc install gsmartctl and smartmontools (Linux) and run
them. See what the output says. In my experience Linux distributions
complain about dodgy hardware long before Windows will...



--
Became a recluse
And bought a computer
Set it up in the home
Elusive big one
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/12/2010 5:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
> that shows normal operation - no error.
>
> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

The best HDD repair and diagnostic tool is SpinRite 6.
There is nothing better for what you want.

http://www.grc.com/intro.htm
 
S

Schweik

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:11:18 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
>> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
>> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
>> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
>> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
>> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
>> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>
>Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
>programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
>So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
>boot loader.

Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
reassigned.

>If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
>ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
>utilities that might help.

As it had nothing to do with the problems I wonder why you keep going
on about the boot tracks?

>> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
>> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
>
>Always good to replace disks early.

>> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
>> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
>> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
>> that shows normal operation - no error.
>>
>> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
>> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
>
>Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
>towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
>it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
>fail shortly there after.

How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.

It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
 
S

Schweik

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
>action.
>You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
>Sounds like Windows.
>You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
>(\__/)
>(='.':]
>(")_(") mouse
>

Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.

Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
 
C

Canuck57

Flightless Bird
On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:11:18 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
>>> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
>>> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
>>> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
>>> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
>>> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
>>> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>>
>> Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
>> programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
>> So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
>> boot loader.
>
> Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
> booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
> nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
> reassigned.

Sure does, if it points to a removed partition that no longer exists.

>> Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
>> towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
>> it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
>> fail shortly there after.
>
> How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
> still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.
>
> It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
> that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.

Batteries go dead and weird settings lost is one common issue. Plus
when things go wrong, people putz...

But when in doubt, I replace the things. A 1 TB drive is cheap.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
 
C

Canuck57

Flightless Bird
On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
> <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>
>> I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
>> action.
>> You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
>> Sounds like Windows.
>> You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
>> (\__/)
>> (='.':]
>> (")_(") mouse
>>
>
> Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
> after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
> Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.
>
> Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
> Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Schweik
> (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
 
T

Trimble Bracegirdle

Flightless Bird
The Spin Rite 6 seems to date from 2004 ..Will it work on Vista / Win 7
64 Bit ???
(\__/)
(='.':]
(")_(") mouse
 
P

Pen

Flightless Bird
On 6/13/2010 6:34 PM, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> The Spin Rite 6 seems to date from 2004 ..Will it work on Vista / Win 7
> 64 Bit ???
> (\__/)
> (='.':]
> (")_(") mouse
>
>
Spinrite works from a DOS clone. You boot to it. The
operating system is immaterial.
 
P

Parko

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:50:53 +0700, Schweik sgraffire:

> Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the Linux
> partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.

I do beg to differ. Windows 7 home premium from Linux Mint:

Parko@gruntmaster-5000 /media/C81C81E11C81CAC0 $ ls -a
.. hiberfil.sys pagefile.sys
... install.exe PerfLogs
autoexec.bat install.ini prefs.js
Boot install.res.1028.dll ProgramData
Boot.BAK install.res.1031.dll Program Files
Boot.ini.saved install.res.1033.dll Program Files (x86)
bootmgr install.res.1036.dll Python31
BOOTSECT.BAK install.res.1040.dll Recovery
Config.Msi install.res.1041.dll $Recycle.Bin
config.sys install.res.1042.dll RECYCLER
Documents and Settings install.res.2052.dll System Volume Information
eula.1028.txt install.res.3082.dll Temp
eula.1031.txt Intel Users
eula.1033.txt IO.SYS VC_RED.cab
eula.1036.txt mbam-error.txt vcredist.bmp
eula.1040.txt MSDOS.SYS VC_RED.MSI
eula.1041.txt MSOCache VritualRoot
eula.1042.txt My Documents Windows
eula.2052.txt NTDETECT.COM Windows.old
eula.3082.txt ntldr Windows.old.000
globdata.ini NVIDIA
Parko@gruntmaster-5000 /media/C81C81E11C81CAC0 $

If you want Linux FS access from windows you should use the older ext2fs
and install this
http://www.fs-driver.org/
--
Became a recluse
And bought a computer
Set it up in the home
Elusive big one
 
J

J. D.

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:49:38 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
>> <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>>
>>> I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
>>> action.
>>> You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
>>> Sounds like Windows.
>>> You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
>>> (\__/)
>>> (='.':]
>>> (")_(") mouse
>>>
>>
>> Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
>> after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
>> Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.
>>
>> Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
>> Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Schweik
>> (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
>
>So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?
>
>http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html


Well, as I believe I wrote, There are two systems on the disk. Windows
7 and Linux.... Now, since there would be very little logic in having
two systems on the same disk if they were not both bootable what do
you think I'm using to boot with? The Windows boot system that will
only boot to Windows? Or maybe something else?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)
 
J

J. D.

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:47:23 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:11:18 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>>> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
>>>> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
>>>> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
>>>> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
>>>> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
>>>> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
>>>> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
>>>
>>> Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
>>> programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
>>> So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
>>> boot loader.
>>
>> Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
>> booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
>> nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
>> reassigned.
>
>Sure does, if it points to a removed partition that no longer exists.

Go back and read what I originally wrote. "The disk booted and ran
normally". then come back and tell me what the boot section has to
with the problem?

>
>>> Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
>>> towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
>>> it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
>>> fail shortly there after.
>>
>> How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
>> still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.
>>
>> It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
>> that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.
>
>Batteries go dead and weird settings lost is one common issue. Plus
>when things go wrong, people putz...
>
>But when in doubt, I replace the things. A 1 TB drive is cheap.

The system boots and runs normally so you will change a battery? Weird
settings lost? Whatever are you talking about?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
J. D. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:49:38 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
>>> <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
>>>> action.
>>>> You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
>>>> Sounds like Windows.
>>>> You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
>>>> (\__/)
>>>> (='.':]
>>>> (")_(") mouse
>>>>
>>>
>>> Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
>>> after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
>>> Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.
>>>
>>> Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
>>> Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Schweik
>>> (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
>>
>> So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?
>>
>> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html
>
>
> Well, as I believe I wrote, There are two systems on the disk. Windows
> 7 and Linux.... Now, since there would be very little logic in having
> two systems on the same disk if they were not both bootable what do
> you think I'm using to boot with? The Windows boot system that will
> only boot to Windows? Or maybe something else?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John D. Slocomb
> (jdslocombatgmail)

I use the BIOS. With my ASUS MB, all I have to do is hit F8 and then
choose which hard drive I would like to boot to. I have two hard drives
with Windows on one and Ubuntu on the other. When Ubuntu has a kernel or
Grub update, I power down and disconnect the Windows drive before
updating so that it doesn't write anything to the Windows drive.

--
Alias
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top