• 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

F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/15/2010 9:04 AM, Alias wrote:
> 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.
>

What a total waste of time.
 
P

Parko

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:

> 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.


Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.
I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.



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

Alias

Flightless Bird
Parko wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>
>> 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.

>
> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
> specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.


That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.

> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.


The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.

--
Alias
 
J

J. D.

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>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.



Yes you can do it that way. You can physically disconnect disk cables
too, but it is just as easy to install grub to the MBR of whatever
disk is first and then add any additional devices to the grub menu.

At the moment I have the BIOS "boot" sequence set to CD then USB then
HD and keep a small USB H.D. with a Linux system and a lot of wifi
testing stuff on it. If you plug it in, it boots.
The reason for the USB H.D. is that I used to have the testing stuff
on a USB memory stick and would boot from that but it ran
excruciatingly slowly so got a cheap USB H.D. Now it is at least
usable.



Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)
 
J

J. D. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>Parko wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.

>
>That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.
>
>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.

>
>The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.


A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
for in a windows disk or partition.

And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
concerned.


Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
J. D. Slocomb wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> Parko wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.

>>
>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.
>>
>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.

>>
>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>> drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>> Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.

>
> A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
> quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
> that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
> grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
> written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
> for in a windows disk or partition.
>
> And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
> is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
> concerned.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> John D. Slocomb
> (jdslocombatgmail)


Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it. And as I
plan to pull the Windows drive out and just use Ubuntu, it would be
foolish of me to do anything other than what I described above. Perhaps
there are some work arounds but I already have it set up exactly the way
I want it so why bother?

--
Alias
 
P

Parko

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias sgraffire:

> Parko wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current
>> configuration.

>
> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.


https://help.ubuntu.com/community/GraphicalInstall

The Advanced radio buttons are a bit of a hint.

>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup
>> first.

>
> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
> drive


Why? Every dual booting machine I've used has worked just fine with grub
or lilo.

>nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
> Ubuntu.


This is real news to me. Perhaps I missed something in the past few years
or so. Could you please provide me with a link to support this claim
because I've been testing various distributions for the past few weeks on
a dual boot machine and I haven't seen this behaviour yet. It sounds
serious.


--
The bats have left the bell tower
The victims have been bled
Red velvet lines the black box
Bela Lugosi's dead
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 06/16/2010 05:29 PM, Parko wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>
>> Parko wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current
>>> configuration.

>>
>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.

>
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/GraphicalInstall
>
> The Advanced radio buttons are a bit of a hint.
>
>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup
>>> first.

>>
>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>> drive

>
> Why?


Because if Windows gets infected, say, and needs to be reinstalled, it's
easier. Or if you want to change the Windows install from XP to Windows
7, it's much easier.

Every dual booting machine I've used has worked just fine with grub
> or lilo.


I'm not talking about "working fine".

>
>> nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>> Ubuntu.

>
> This is real news to me. Perhaps I missed something in the past few years
> or so.


Probably because you always use Grub or Lilo.

> Could you please provide me with a link to support this claim


No, I base this on experience, not some link.

> because I've been testing various distributions for the past few weeks on
> a dual boot machine and I haven't seen this behaviour yet. It sounds
> serious.


Do it the way I did (separate drives, each OS installed with the other
drive disconnected) and then update the kernel and see for yourself.

--
Alias
 
P

Parko

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias sgraffire:

> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it


The first sector of the drive you tell it to install itself to actually.
you're confused. Format the windows partition and grub will boot you
Linux distro if you tell it to. I know because I did it.

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

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 06/16/2010 05:39 PM, Parko wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>
>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it

>
> The first sector of the drive you tell it to install itself to actually.
> you're confused. Format the windows partition and grub will boot you
> Linux distro if you tell it to. I know because I did it.
>


Two drives, not two partitions.

--
Alias
 
P

Peter Foldes

Flightless Bird
>> A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
>> quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
>> that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
>> grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
>> written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
>> for in a windows disk or partition.
>>
>> And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
>> is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
>> concerned.


Very true and right on the money. Also I have used Knoppix,Ubuntu to boot Windows
when it does not boot. Excellent tools for dead Windows
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
news:hvaj4f$t3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> J. D. Slocomb wrote:
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/16/2010 8:37 AM, Alias wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 05:29 PM, Parko wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>
>>> Parko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current
>>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.

>>
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/GraphicalInstall
>>
>> The Advanced radio buttons are a bit of a hint.
>>
>>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup
>>>> first.
>>>
>>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>>> drive

>>
>> Why?

>
> Because if Windows gets infected, say, and needs to be reinstalled, it's
> easier. Or if you want to change the Windows install from XP to Windows
> 7, it's much easier.
>
> Every dual booting machine I've used has worked just fine with grub
>> or lilo.

>
> I'm not talking about "working fine".
>
>>
>>> nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>>> Ubuntu.

>>
>> This is real news to me. Perhaps I missed something in the past few years
>> or so.

>
> Probably because you always use Grub or Lilo.
>
>> Could you please provide me with a link to support this claim

>
> No, I base this on experience, not some link.
>
>> because I've been testing various distributions for the past few weeks on
>> a dual boot machine and I haven't seen this behaviour yet. It sounds
>> serious.

>
> Do it the way I did (separate drives, each OS installed with the other
> drive disconnected) and then update the kernel and see for yourself.
>

hehehe...proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
Proof you don't have Windows 7, the very best OS available today.
Get lost, you lying linturd asshole loser.
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/16/2010 8:47 AM, Alias wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 05:39 PM, Parko wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>
>>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it

>>
>> The first sector of the drive you tell it to install itself to actually.
>> you're confused. Format the windows partition and grub will boot you
>> Linux distro if you tell it to. I know because I did it.
>>

>
> Two drives, not two partitions.
>

What a total waste of time.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 06/17/2010 04:40 PM, Frank wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 8:47 AM, Alias wrote:
>> On 06/16/2010 05:39 PM, Parko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>
>>>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>>>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>>>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it
>>>
>>> The first sector of the drive you tell it to install itself to actually.
>>> you're confused. Format the windows partition and grub will boot you
>>> Linux distro if you tell it to. I know because I did it.
>>>

>>
>> Two drives, not two partitions.
>>

> What a total waste of time.


Too bad you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Course that
won't stop you from doing it again and again, how will it?

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
alias the asshole

On 6/17/2010 8:45 AM, Alias wrote:
> On 06/17/2010 04:40 PM, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 8:47 AM, Alias wrote:
>>> On 06/16/2010 05:39 PM, Parko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>>
>>>>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>>>>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>>>>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it
>>>>
>>>> The first sector of the drive you tell it to install itself to
>>>> actually.
>>>> you're confused. Format the windows partition and grub will boot you
>>>> Linux distro if you tell it to. I know because I did it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two drives, not two partitions.
>>>

>> What a total waste of time.

>
> Too bad you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Course that
> won't stop you from doing it again and again, how will it?
>

Projecting again you *dumb fuck*?
Figures!
 
J

J. D. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>J. D. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> Parko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.
>>>
>>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.
>>>
>>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.
>>>
>>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>>> drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>>> Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.

>>
>> A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
>> quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
>> that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
>> grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
>> written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
>> for in a windows disk or partition.
>>
>> And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
>> is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
>> concerned.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John D. Slocomb
>> (jdslocombatgmail)

>
>Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it. And as I
>plan to pull the Windows drive out and just use Ubuntu, it would be
>foolish of me to do anything other than what I described above. Perhaps
>there are some work arounds but I already have it set up exactly the way
>I want it so why bother?


You are saying something wrong.

Assuming that you have one disk with Windows installed in one
partition, or several for that matter; and Linux installed in the
Linux partitions, regardless of how many there are; and you do a Linux
update, whether it installs a new kernel or not.

Linux will update files in the Linux partitions and will not change
files in the windows partitions. Linux will boot even though you were
to completely delete the windows software from the disk.

Now then. If you have windows installed on one disk then this disk
must be Disk A, or whatever name you care to assign to it, but the
disk that the BIOS will attempt to access first. The Master disk, lets
call it. And you have Linux installed on a totally separate and
different disk, which we can call the slave disk.

Now then, when you turn your computer on Bios spins up the Master disk
and attempts to read the Master Boot Record which consists of
something like the first 20, or so, sectors on the disk. It reads this
section into memory and assuming that there is computer instructions
there jumps to it to start the software boot action. If there is
nothing there or it can't be read you will see a error message that
"Can't find a bootable disk" or some such notice.

Now if you update your Linux the update still doesn't write to the
Windows disk but since the Master disk also contains the MBR the
machine will not boot unless the Master disk is connected.

However, you could still erase the windows partitions and as long as
you didn't tinker with the first few disk sectors you could boot
Linux.

You can prove this by copying the MBR to a file - you can use dd to do
that - and then erase the disk then copy the MBR back to the disk - so
that you know the MBR is in place and see whether the machine will
boot :)

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
J. D. Slocomb wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> J. D. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Parko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.
>>>>
>>>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.
>>>>
>>>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.
>>>>
>>>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>>>> drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>>>> Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
>>> quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
>>> that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
>>> grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
>>> written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
>>> for in a windows disk or partition.
>>>
>>> And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
>>> is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
>>> concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John D. Slocomb
>>> (jdslocombatgmail)

>>
>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it. And as I
>> plan to pull the Windows drive out and just use Ubuntu, it would be
>> foolish of me to do anything other than what I described above. Perhaps
>> there are some work arounds but I already have it set up exactly the way
>> I want it so why bother?

>
> You are saying something wrong.
>
> Assuming that you have one disk with Windows installed in one
> partition, or several for that matter; and Linux installed in the
> Linux partitions, regardless of how many there are; and you do a Linux
> update, whether it installs a new kernel or not.
>
> Linux will update files in the Linux partitions and will not change
> files in the windows partitions. Linux will boot even though you were
> to completely delete the windows software from the disk.
>
> Now then. If you have windows installed on one disk then this disk
> must be Disk A, or whatever name you care to assign to it, but the
> disk that the BIOS will attempt to access first. The Master disk, lets
> call it. And you have Linux installed on a totally separate and
> different disk, which we can call the slave disk.
>
> Now then, when you turn your computer on Bios spins up the Master disk
> and attempts to read the Master Boot Record which consists of
> something like the first 20, or so, sectors on the disk. It reads this
> section into memory and assuming that there is computer instructions
> there jumps to it to start the software boot action. If there is
> nothing there or it can't be read you will see a error message that
> "Can't find a bootable disk" or some such notice.
>
> Now if you update your Linux the update still doesn't write to the
> Windows disk but since the Master disk also contains the MBR the
> machine will not boot unless the Master disk is connected.
>
> However, you could still erase the windows partitions and as long as
> you didn't tinker with the first few disk sectors you could boot
> Linux.
>
> You can prove this by copying the MBR to a file - you can use dd to do
> that - and then erase the disk then copy the MBR back to the disk - so
> that you know the MBR is in place and see whether the machine will
> boot :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> John D. Slocomb
> (jdslocombatgmail)


I could but what a waste of time when you consider Windows will be
leaving this box forever; I'm not getting any younger, and I'm more into
using a computer for business and pleasure than tinkering with different
OSes and booting strategies.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/17/2010 5:06 PM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> J. D. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Parko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.
>>>>
>>>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.
>>>>
>>>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.
>>>>
>>>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
>>>> drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>>>> Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
>>> quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
>>> that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
>>> grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
>>> written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
>>> for in a windows disk or partition.
>>>
>>> And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
>>> is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
>>> concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John D. Slocomb
>>> (jdslocombatgmail)

>>
>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it. And as I
>> plan to pull the Windows drive out and just use Ubuntu, it would be
>> foolish of me to do anything other than what I described above. Perhaps
>> there are some work arounds but I already have it set up exactly the way
>> I want it so why bother?

>
> You are saying something wrong.
>
> Assuming that you have one disk with Windows installed in one
> partition, or several for that matter; and Linux installed in the
> Linux partitions, regardless of how many there are; and you do a Linux
> update, whether it installs a new kernel or not.
>
> Linux will update files in the Linux partitions and will not change
> files in the windows partitions. Linux will boot even though you were
> to completely delete the windows software from the disk.
>
> Now then. If you have windows installed on one disk then this disk
> must be Disk A, or whatever name you care to assign to it, but the
> disk that the BIOS will attempt to access first. The Master disk, lets
> call it. And you have Linux installed on a totally separate and
> different disk, which we can call the slave disk.
>
> Now then, when you turn your computer on Bios spins up the Master disk
> and attempts to read the Master Boot Record which consists of
> something like the first 20, or so, sectors on the disk. It reads this
> section into memory and assuming that there is computer instructions
> there jumps to it to start the software boot action. If there is
> nothing there or it can't be read you will see a error message that
> "Can't find a bootable disk" or some such notice.
>
> Now if you update your Linux the update still doesn't write to the
> Windows disk but since the Master disk also contains the MBR the
> machine will not boot unless the Master disk is connected.
>
> However, you could still erase the windows partitions and as long as
> you didn't tinker with the first few disk sectors you could boot
> Linux.
>
> You can prove this by copying the MBR to a file - you can use dd to do
> that - and then erase the disk then copy the MBR back to the disk - so
> that you know the MBR is in place and see whether the machine will
> boot :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> John D. Slocomb
> (jdslocombatgmail)


WoW! That is so far about alias, the idiot lying linturds pay grade that
its not even funny.
But I'll laugh anyway and thanks for the opportunity!...LOL!
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/17/2010 5:16 PM, Alias wrote:
> J. D. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:21:16 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> J. D. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:07:06 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Parko wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:04:28 +0200, Alias sgraffire:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
>>>>>> specific instructions, and without backing up your current
>>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup
>>>>>> first.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the
>>>>> Windows
>>>>> drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
>>>>> Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have
>>>>> Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
>>>> quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
>>>> that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
>>>> grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
>>>> written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
>>>> for in a windows disk or partition.
>>>>
>>>> And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
>>>> is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
>>>> concerned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John D. Slocomb
>>>> (jdslocombatgmail)
>>>
>>> Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
>>> drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
>>> Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it. And as I
>>> plan to pull the Windows drive out and just use Ubuntu, it would be
>>> foolish of me to do anything other than what I described above. Perhaps
>>> there are some work arounds but I already have it set up exactly the way
>>> I want it so why bother?

>>
>> You are saying something wrong.
>>
>> Assuming that you have one disk with Windows installed in one
>> partition, or several for that matter; and Linux installed in the
>> Linux partitions, regardless of how many there are; and you do a Linux
>> update, whether it installs a new kernel or not.
>>
>> Linux will update files in the Linux partitions and will not change
>> files in the windows partitions. Linux will boot even though you were
>> to completely delete the windows software from the disk.
>>
>> Now then. If you have windows installed on one disk then this disk
>> must be Disk A, or whatever name you care to assign to it, but the
>> disk that the BIOS will attempt to access first. The Master disk, lets
>> call it. And you have Linux installed on a totally separate and
>> different disk, which we can call the slave disk.
>>
>> Now then, when you turn your computer on Bios spins up the Master disk
>> and attempts to read the Master Boot Record which consists of
>> something like the first 20, or so, sectors on the disk. It reads this
>> section into memory and assuming that there is computer instructions
>> there jumps to it to start the software boot action. If there is
>> nothing there or it can't be read you will see a error message that
>> "Can't find a bootable disk" or some such notice.
>>
>> Now if you update your Linux the update still doesn't write to the
>> Windows disk but since the Master disk also contains the MBR the
>> machine will not boot unless the Master disk is connected.
>>
>> However, you could still erase the windows partitions and as long as
>> you didn't tinker with the first few disk sectors you could boot
>> Linux.
>>
>> You can prove this by copying the MBR to a file - you can use dd to do
>> that - and then erase the disk then copy the MBR back to the disk - so
>> that you know the MBR is in place and see whether the machine will
>> boot :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John D. Slocomb
>> (jdslocombatgmail)

>
> I could but what a waste of time when you consider Windows will be
> leaving this box forever; I'm not getting any younger, and I'm more into
> using a computer for business and pleasure than tinkering with different
> OSes and booting strategies.
>

Translation: alias is getting dumber with age!
Oops!
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Flightless Bird
On 6/12/2010 6:40 PM, 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.


Depends on which SMART fields you're looking at. When it comes to bad
sectors, there's three fields in particular that you need to look at
manually: (1) Reallocated Sectors Count, (2) Current Pending Sectors
Count, and (3) Offline Uncorrectable Sectors Count. That list is in
order of seriousness.

For #1 Reallocated Sectors, those are sectors that have been replaced by
the drive hardware itself from its spare pool. This is good news, it
means that the drives own failsafes have done their job, and bad sectors
have been successfully replaced by spare sectors, and your data is safe.
Having a few of these reallocated sectors is fine, but if you notice
them increasing over time, then it's time to do something.

For #2 Pending Sectors, this is a bit more serious. It means that some
sectors have been found to be iffy. They are still readable, but you can
not write to them anymore. They will get rewritten to spare sectors at
the next write of that sector. That is, unless there are no more spare
sectors left, then go see field #3.

For #3 Uncorrectable Sectors, this means that the pool of spare sectors
is now finished. Hopefully at this point the OS itself will start
blocking out bad sectors, thus reducing the overall capacity of the drive.

Now, many SMART reporters don't pay attention to #1 at all, they just
assume that the drive has done its job, and everything is fine. But they
don't monitor the drive over time, so they have no idea if it's remained
the same as before, or if it's increased since the last time it checked.
What might be happening here was that Fedora was one of the ones that
monitor disk health over periods of time, and it noticed counts
increasing. So don't just blindly follow the Hitachi or Seagate disk
monitoring tools' report that everything is fine, as in actual fact the
bad sectors might be increasing over time.

> 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?



You can probably keep using it as a non-critical data drive. Just not a
boot drive.

Yousuf Khan
 
Top