t: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: partition check error at boot time
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:44:40PM +0800, Daniel Tan wrote:
> try installing kernels using -ivh instead of -Fvh next time
>
For us newbies, why wouldn't you use -Uvh?
up2date seems to handle this stu
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:44:40PM +0800, Daniel Tan wrote:
> try installing kernels using -ivh instead of -Fvh next time
>
For us newbies, why wouldn't you use -Uvh?
up2date seems to handle this stuff pretty gracefully, so I've not messed w/ just
changing the kernel.
Thanx,
Earl
--
redhat-
try installing kernels using -ivh instead of -Fvh next time
- Original Message -
From: "Allen Wayne Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Red Hat Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 7:47 AM
Subject: partition check error at boot time
hello:
i am having a real di
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 07:07, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:38, Brian Ashe wrote:
>
> > One, I don't know if you believe that a different partition layout will affect
> > the performance of the system or not, but other than a few rare
> > circumstances, it rarely does.
>
> Sorry
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:38, Brian Ashe wrote:
> One, I don't know if you believe that a different partition layout will affect
> the performance of the system or not, but other than a few rare
> circumstances, it rarely does.
Sorry, but beg to differ - load balancing helps.
By simply having p
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 12:22, Scot Huntsberry wrote:
> I am going to reinstall RH 9 tomorrow because my system has gotten so
> slow that it is ridiculous. I was wondering if I could get some
> suggestions oh how to best partition a 50gb hard drive to maximize the
> efficiency of the system. I woul
Scot,
On Monday August 25, 2003 10:22, Scot Huntsberry wrote:
> I am going to reinstall RH 9 tomorrow because my system has gotten so
> slow that it is ridiculous. I was wondering if I could get some
> suggestions oh how to best partition a 50gb hard drive to maximize the
> efficiency of the syst
I am not the expert here. But I think your RAM and
neccessary software or applications to be run will
affect the partitioning decisions.
--- Scot Huntsberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I
am going to reinstall RH 9 tomorrow because my
> system has gotten so
> slow that it is ridiculous. I was wo
Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 16:36, John Nichel wrote:
How can I view my partition table on RH 9 with /etc/fstab is screwed up,
and I can only boot into single user mode?
fdisk -l /dev/hd*
Jason Dixon, RHCE
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
Thanks. I was trying that,
John Nichel wrote:
> How can I view my partition table on RH 9 with /etc/fstab is screwed up,
> and I can only boot into single user mode?
/sbin/fdisk
at the Command (m for help): prompt, type 'p'
> By-Tor.com
> It's all about the Rush
> http://www.by-tor.com
Not long 'til the DVD :)
On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 16:36, John Nichel wrote:
> How can I view my partition table on RH 9 with /etc/fstab is screwed up,
> and I can only boot into single user mode?
fdisk -l /dev/hd*
Jason Dixon, RHCE
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe
Le 02/07/2003 15:31, « Bo Peng » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Although its manual says 'windows OS required', redhat 9 can handle the
> controller and harddrive without problem.
*** Thanks.
> 1. transcode can not read (even 'ls' fail) files >2G from a fat32 partition.
*** That makes i
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:14:08AM +0200, Zoki wrote:
> > Yes. I am using a ATA/133 controller. But redhat recognized and set up
> > the controller, partitioned the harddrive with disk druid without any
> *** What is the brand of your controller?
> Software isn't released, it's allowed to escape
Le 01/07/2003 15:34, « Bo Peng » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Yes. I am using a ATA/133 controller. But redhat recognized and set up
> the controller, partitioned the harddrive with disk druid without any
*** What is the brand of your controller?
--
Cheers,
Zoran.
Software isn't relea
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:34:13AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:19:22AM -0500, Fluke wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bo Peng wrote:
> > > When I installed my redhat 9 system, disk druid recognized my 160G
> > > harddrive and made partition correctly. I am adding another hardd
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:19:22AM -0500, Fluke wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bo Peng wrote:
> > When I installed my redhat 9 system, disk druid recognized my 160G
> > harddrive and made partition correctly. I am adding another harddrive
> > and trying to repartition (actually LVMing) the 160G on
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bo Peng wrote:
> When I installed my redhat 9 system, disk druid recognized my 160G
> harddrive and made partition correctly. I am adding another harddrive
> and trying to repartition (actually LVMing) the 160G one. However, fdisk
> can not even display the partition table c
Hello,
Looks to me like you will end up losing data anyway. Once partitions are set
and data has been put on them, you can't necessarily change the size of
exising partitions without losing data.
You may be able to use partition magic to do what you want but make sure you
back up the data fir
which is what caused the
problem. Hmmm
Once again many thanks for all your untiring help
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: / partition full
> On
The easiest way to track it down is to use du with the -x flag which will
exclude other filesystems (such as /proc, /mnt/Windows, /usr & /var) so
the command line ends up being:
du -x | sort -rn | head -n 20
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mikevl wrote:
> I can somebody please help me out with this.?
Thanks All
I will try this latter today after work
Many thanks
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: / partition full
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, M
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mikevl wrote:
> I can somebody please help me out with this.?
>
> My root partition seems to be full but I cannot find the files which
> fill it up.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Mike
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df -h
> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Burke, Thomas G. wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that so many of his
> directories (that should be big, like usr) are listed as 4096
> size?... Try inserting your install disk & run the ls command fr
-
From: Mikevl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: / partition full
Thanks to all that have replied
Have I missed something. Does the population of other directories
affect the
/ partition?
Am I looking for a file in the / direct
ks
>
> Mike
> - Original Message -
> From: "Milanuk, Monte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 6:52 AM
> Subject: RE: / partition full
>
>
> >
> > The version that I normally us
D]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 6:52 AM
Subject: RE: / partition full
>
> The version that I normally use is like this:
>
> du -hmc / --exclude=proc --max-depth=2
>
> I would unmount any network filesytems prior to starting this, and eject
any
> removable media. Either
The version that I normally use is like this:
du -hmc / --exclude=proc --max-depth=2
I would unmount any network filesytems prior to starting this, and eject any
removable media. Either that or include them w/ their own --exclude=
statements in the command call. Once you see where the bulk of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that so many of his
directories (that should be big, like usr) are listed as 4096
size?... Try inserting your install disk & run the ls command from
there. If you see a difference, then you've been hacke
du -sk / | sort -n
Thanks
-- pady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mikevl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: / partition full
I can somebody please help me out with this.?
My root partition seems to be full b
Andy Kirk wrote:
I am running RH8, and have realised that my /usr partition is much too
large, and my /var partition is much too small.
Is there any way to resize these partitions without effecting the
installation at all. I can not afford to reinstall.
The other option would be to move my Apa
In theory, if the /usr and /var partitions were right next to each other
on the hard drive, you could use a tool like partition magic to shrink
down the one, and then enlarge the other, but in my opinion, the risk of
data loss is much too high. Besides, you could move the Apache and
MySQL stuf
Read the man page on e2label.
Scott
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 16:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Someplace in the Install process, it looks like fdisk (or something
> similar) writes 'Labels' to the partitions on the disk, and then
> uses these labels in /etc/fstab.
>
> Other than /etc/fstab, I see r
sage-
>>From: Cohan, Sean [mailto:SCohan@;goSPS.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:35 AM
>>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>>Subject: RE: Partition/Setup Decisions
>>
>>
>>If someone replied to this, can you do it again? I
>>accidental
If someone replied to this, can you do it again? I accidentally deleted
messages from this forum. I can't seem to get to the archive of yesterday's
messages either. Thanks.
If no one replied, can someone please? ;)
-Original Message-
From: Cohan, Sean [mailto:SCohan@;goSPS.com]
Sent:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 12:59:44PM +1000, cj wrote:
>
> What is the largest partition size linux could handle?
2TB, IIRC.
--
Hal Burgiss
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-li
Well, I meant www.tldg.org because that's what the person told me, but
you are right, it's www.tldp.org. Thanks. James
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 20:05, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> > The problem is that I cannot even get win2k installed. Are you saying
> > that XOSL will help with that? Will it be able t
I dont think xosl will hide any partitions.I think the opposite is true.
Edward Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> The problem is that I cannot even get win2k installed. Are you saying> that XOSL will help with that? Will it be able to hide disks and> partitions so that the Win2k install will
> The problem is that I cannot even get win2k installed. Are you saying
> that XOSL will help with that? Will it be able to hide disks and
> partitions so that the Win2k install will not even see them? I do
> already have xosl, I've just never tried it. I will take a look at it.
>
> Also, can't
I can send u my exe file if u want.
--- James Pifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: >
i'll have to see if like you said the newer version
> doesn't require you
> to provide a partition for it.
>
>
> On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:27, linux power wrote:
> >
> > Install XOSL
> > Binyon Steve Contr Det
i'll have to see if like you said the newer version doesn't require you
to provide a partition for it.
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:27, linux power wrote:
>
> Install XOSL
> Binyon Steve Contr Det 4 AFC2TIG/ASRCC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: Is
>the 100g drive empty? If so, physically disconnect
Nope, I have a ton of stuff on that drive too.
I fear I may be blowing everything away (on the 40 gig drive) and
reinstalling both OSes. Just hope I don't mess up the 100gig drive while
i'm at it. Can't backup everything that's on there
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:10, Binyon Steve Contr
Install XOSL
Binyon Steve Contr Det 4 AFC2TIG/ASRCC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
Is the 100g drive empty? If so, physically disconnect the 40g and make the 100g the primary (i.e. 'C' drive) and install Win on it, then reconnect everything back where Linux will boot and adjust yourlilo.conf so you
Is the 100g drive empty? If so, physically disconnect the 40g and
make the 100g the primary (i.e. 'C' drive) and install Win on it,
then reconnect everything back where Linux will boot and adjust your
lilo.conf so you can select Windows or Linux. Not sure if it will
work, it seems everything I
On 1 Oct 2002, James Pifer wrote:
>[...] (Sorry, I didn't start following this till now.)
> > > >-- Original Message --
> > > >Subject: Partition Magic
> > > >From: James Pifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: redhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Date: 30 Sep 2002 1
I didnt do that. I first created win part and lin part
and at last I installed xosl. Could it be old docs u
read?
--- James Pifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: >
I'm looking at the installation notes for XOSL and
> it says you have to
> create a partition for it manually. That's the whole
> proble
I'm looking at the installation notes for XOSL and it says you have to
create a partition for it manually. That's the whole problem, I can't
create a partition on the first disk. For whatever reason Partition
Magic will not let me move/resize the two Linux ext2 partitions that are
there, but it wi
The problem is that I cannot even get win2k installed. Are you saying
that XOSL will help with that? Will it be able to hide disks and
partitions so that the Win2k install will not even see them? I do
already have xosl, I've just never tried it. I will take a look at it.
Also, can't get to www.t
Download and install XOSL. Its a dos/win program that
installs in the maste boot sector of your HD and let
you choose which system u want to boot.
Search google for it.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev: > Hi,
>
> Try looking at this site www.tldg.org and navigate
> through the HOW To's,
> Catergori
Hi,
Try looking at this site www.tldg.org and navigate through the HOW To's,
Catergorised Index and select boot loaders and booting the OS.
This helped a collegue of mine install linux onto a system running XP and
allowed him during booy up to select which OS he needed to run.
I hope this helps
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:41:42 +0200, Tom Harr Jakobsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is my current partition;
> > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>
> > /dev/hda5 372M 373M 0 100% /
This looks full also. Might be able to remove some temp files in /tmp.
If that's all it is then you
gpart may do it.
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 14:55, Peter Kiem wrote:
>
> Stupid me used MSDOS fdisk to delete a partition and it rewrote the
> partition table without the Linux ones.
>
> Is there some tool that can scan the harddrive and find the partitions? The
> data should be still there, just
Hi try "parted"
I never used it but it is a partition manager
http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnuparted/
regards
Krishna
Krishna Shekhar
Network Administrator
Wiplash Wireless
- Original Message -
From: Peter Kiem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Hello,
Peter Kiem wrote:
> Stupid me used MSDOS fdisk to delete a partition and it rewrote the
> partition table without the Linux ones.
>
> Is there some tool that can scan the harddrive and find the partitions? The
> data should be still there, just need to recreate the partition table.
>
I
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 03:52:57AM -, shyam wrote:
> if i want to have a windows partition with RH7.2 what should be
> the size
The size should be big enough to hold all the data you plan on putting
there. We don't know what you'll be putting in that partition!
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View,
Hello.
The first partition that You must create is /boot ,these must be allocated in the
first 1024 cilynders,after You can
create in order as You wish .
Josep
Begin of Quote shyam :
>hi friends
>
>I am trying to install RH7.2 on my home pc ,i have 18GB hard disk(scsi).i have one
>win95 part
> Brian Davis wrote:
> > Ok, so what size should partitions actually be ??
> >
> > I am running a server and my /var always seems to be too small. Log
> > files fill it up, spool files fill it up etc etc. 300Mb free seems too
> > little on /var.
> >
> > /home doesn't leave much suer space. Es
Hi,
I generally use 40-60 GB hard drives on our Linux machines. I create a
5 GB root partition, and then all the rest is one big partition. I
don't create separate partitions for the various directories in the root
partition, like /var and /usr. I never let the installer
auto-partition. I
> Ok, so what size should partitions actually be ??
Whatever size the application calls for. I always create partitions with
the usage in mind.
> I am running a server and my /var always seems to be too small. Log
> files fill it up, spool files fill it up etc etc. 300Mb free seems too
> littl
On Saturday 15 June 2002 07:59 am, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> On 14-Jun-2002/19:49 -0400, David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >On Friday 14 June 2002 05:28 pm, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> >> On 13-Jun-2002/19:56 -0400, David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >wrote:
> >> >On Thursday 13 Ju
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-Jun-2002/19:49 -0400, David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Friday 14 June 2002 05:28 pm, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
>> On 13-Jun-2002/19:56 -0400, David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >On Thursday 13 June 2002 05:36 pm, ebinc wrot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-Jun-2002/20:29 -0400, ebinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm createing a partition for a server using disk droid, I have a 40gig
>drive and 256meg memory, Red Hat 7.2/with Plesk (rpm version around
>18meg for plesk) what would be a good partiti
On Friday 14 June 2002 05:28 pm, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13-Jun-2002/19:56 -0400, David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >On Thursday 13 June 2002 05:36 pm, ebinc wrote:
> >> What would be the noemal ext for a servrer partition I creat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-Jun-2002/19:56 -0400, David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thursday 13 June 2002 05:36 pm, ebinc wrote:
>> What would be the noemal ext for a servrer partition I creating
>
>If it's on a server I would recomend using NTFS
This being a
Regular apache web server mail ftp etc
- Original Message -
>I'm createing a partition for a server using disk droid, I have a 40gig
>drive and 256meg memory, Red Hat 7.2/with Plesk (rpm version around 18meg
>for plesk)
>what would be a good partition (50meg ext3 /boot) is this to muc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-Jun-2002/18:29 -0400, ebinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm createing a partition for a server using disk droid, I have a 40gig
>drive and 256meg memory, Red Hat 7.2/with Plesk (rpm version around 18meg
>for plesk)
>what would be a good partit
t; Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Partition question
>
> On Thursday 13 June 2002 02:07 am, ebinc wrote:
> > Could somone tell me whats the difference between ext 2 and ext 3 for the
> > partition does it matter?
> > Thanks
> > Ed
>
> ex
What would be the noemal ext for a servrer partition I creating
- Original Message -
From: David McGlone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Partition question
On Thursday 13 June 2002 02:07 am, ebinc wrote:
&g
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 10:03, David McGlone wrote:
> On Thursday 13 June 2002 02:07 am, ebinc wrote:
> > Could somone tell me whats the difference between ext 2 and ext 3 for the
> > partition does it matter?
> > Thanks
> > Ed
>
> ext3 has journeling capabilities.
>From the Official Redhat Linux
On Thursday 13 June 2002 02:07 am, ebinc wrote:
> Could somone tell me whats the difference between ext 2 and ext 3 for the
> partition does it matter?
> Thanks
> Ed
ext3 has journeling capabilities.
--
David M.
Edification Web Solutions
http://www.edificationweb.com
ext 3 I have been told is self healing.. Atleast MUCH better at it then
ext2. Might even be a journaling file system.
(Ie for those times when the power is lost or you turn it off while the
machine is running.)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
--Original Message-
From: John P Verel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: vrijdag 31 mei 2002 15:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Partition Problem
>On 05/31/02, 11:17:10AM +0200, Van Den Abeele Kristof wrote:
Be sure to take note of item 3.20 in the Red Hat Installation Guide re
>On 05/31/02, 11:17:10AM +0200, Van Den Abeele Kristof wrote:
Be sure to take note of item 3.20 in the Red Hat Installation Guide re:
Boot Loader Installation. If you intend to use LILO or Grub as a
secondary boot loader, it must be installed either below the 1024
cylinder limit or you must sele
--- Van Den Abeele Kristof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
Hello all ,
>
> I have currently one harddisk ( 45GB ) running Win98/WinXP
> ( Pri - C:\ - Win 98 - FAT ) ( Extended D:\ & E:\ - Data - FAT ) (
> Pri - H:\ - NTFS )
>
> But now I have seen the light and I want to install Redhat 7.3 :)
>
Yes go ahead and take the E: off . As far as I have seen , you can have Linux on an extended partition.
My suggestion : have separate partitions for / , /usr and /home and have a SWAP space (2xRAM),
Cheers,
Shyam
Van Den Abeele Kristof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all , I have currently one
On Thursday 09 May 2002 16:11, Vikram Bajaj wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I have a dual boot box with NT server and RedHat linux 7.2
> I 1st installed Nt server and then 7.2 on a 40 gb IDE drive
> Both NT and Linux works fine.
>
> But if i try to reinstall NT due to some other probs
> NT says that the C
Hi,
It was upgraded to SP6a
Regards
Vikram
Wagner, Joseph writes:
> Is/Was it upgraded to SP6a (or at least SP4)?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vikram Bajaj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Partition Problem's RedH
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 2:10 pm, Thierry ITTY wrote:
> Gary,
>
> you should find somewhere the description of partition tables, there's a
> difference between the primary partition entries and the logical volume
> entries. for what I understand, you tried to create a primary partition
> that would
Gary,
you should find somewhere the description of partition tables, there's a
difference between the primary partition entries and the logical volume
entries. for what I understand, you tried to create a primary partition
that would have had to map a logical volume, maybe this could explain why
How about mounting the partition as ext2, resizing it with parted
and then remounting it as ext3 ? Isn't the only real difference on the
disk itself the .journal file ? I've certainly mounted ext3 volumes as
ext2 from rescue floppies and tinkered with them without seeing any
problems.
What about Partition Magic?
Andy Schuler wrote:
>
> I've seen that utility, but according to the man pages it does ext-2
> partitions but not ext-3.
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat
ly, but it's a start. :)
_
daniel a. g. quinn
starving programmer
a little science may take one away from God;
much science brings one back
- roger bacon
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schuler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "redhat-list" <[EMAIL PROTEC
I've seen that utility, but according to the man pages it does ext-2
partitions but not ext-3.
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 16:14, Hidong Kim wrote:
> Have you tried parted http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/parted.html?
> I've never used it myself, but I think it's supposed be able to resize
> partit
Have you tried parted http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/parted.html?
I've never used it myself, but I think it's supposed be able to resize
partitions without reformatting.
Andy Schuler wrote:
>
> Anybody know of a tool that will allow me to resize the partitions on an
> in-use production
At 1/24/2002 02:18 PM -0500, you wrote:
>thanks, I tried e2fslabel, close but no cigar.
When in doubt, try:
$ man -k label
or
$ apropos label
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.red
thanks, I tried e2fslabel, close but no cigar.
-Original Message-
From: Rodolfo J. Paiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: partition label
At 1/24/2002 12:41 PM -0500, you wrote:
>Silly question of the day, I usua
At 1/24/2002 12:41 PM -0500, you wrote:
>Silly question of the day, I usually manage partitions with Partition
>Magic.. so I've never had a need to do this... How do you assign/view a
>label on a disk partition?
e2label is just for that; you can also do this with a parameter to tune2fs.
Both com
On 01/12/02, 11:09:54AM +0530, Jayamohan wrote:
> Hello there, if you have Win98 alreay onstalled then you could use Partition
> Magic 7 to make the Linux partitions. saves you all the head ache. After
> creating the EXT2 and swap partitions just boot from the linux install cd
> and the installati
Thanks Richard
BR
Stephen
On Tuesday 04 December 2001 10:51, you wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Stephen Liu wrote:
> > What I expect is to check is the total partitions in a hard disc, what
> > format, ext2, ext3 or FAT32, etc. ?
>
> How about "fdisk -l", or maybe you want "df -T" ?
>
>
>
> Cheers
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Stephen Liu wrote:
> What I expect is to check is the total partitions in a hard disc, what
> format, ext2, ext3 or FAT32, etc. ?
How about "fdisk -l", or maybe you want "df -T" ?
Cheers,
--
Richard Potter RHCE
Re/Max
Kingston, ON CANADA
__
Hi Statux,
Thanks for your response.
What I expect is to check is the total partitions in a hard disc, what
format, ext2, ext3 or FAT32, etc. ?
Thanks in advance.
B.R.
Stephen Liu
At 08:33 PM 12/3/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Assuming you're using ext2:
>
># fsck.ext2 -f /dev/hda5
>
>where /dev/
Assuming you're using ext2:
# fsck.ext2 -f /dev/hda5
where /dev/hda5 is the partition you're checking. The partition must NOT
be mounted when doing any checking. If you're looking to check root, then
I dunno. You prolly have to set something either in the filesystem header
and then reboot, or
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Wally Brock wrote:
> The newest versions of partition magic are supposed to have the ability
> to resize an ext2 file system. Which would also mean the ability to
> resize ext3. I've not tried this myself so I have no idea how safe or
> reliable it is.
>
> Good Luck,
>
The newest versions of partition magic are supposed to have the ability
to resize an ext2 file system. Which would also mean the ability to
resize ext3. I've not tried this myself so I have no idea how safe or
reliable it is.
Good Luck,
Wally
Steve Lee wrote:
> does anyone know if partiti
Spoke to PowerQuest today. No version of Partition Magic supports ext3.
They're working on it.
I think, for me, I'll just stay with ext2. My machine never crashes
anyway. It IS Linux, you know :)))
On 11/15/01, 10:40:17PM -0500, John P. Verel wrote:
> Good question. I'm running version 5.0, cu
>does anyone know if partition magic
>can resize a ext3 filesystem.
>need to resize my filesystem.
>so i can go buy one instead of
>redoing my system from scratch
parted, ships with redhat. see "man parted", and "help" inside of
parted. i know, the pm gui is nice. but parted is simple, free,
Good question. I'm running version 5.0, current is 7.0, per
PowerQuest's web site. For 7.0, they make mention only of supporting
ext2. When I've spoken to them on the phone, they've been quite
helpful. I'd certainly call them first, if it were my machine.
John
On 11/15/01, 03:15:17AM -0800, S
On Fri, 4 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am getting ready to install a new 20 gig hard drive
> in my husbands win98 box. I was thinking about breaking
> it up into several partitions so I could add linux to
> it later. He is begining to show a little interest the
> fact that wind
Wow! Excellent. I troed a number of things, but not expert :)
All I ended up doing was deleting the partitions and recreating them. For
some reason the newly created partitions *did* end on a cylinder
boundry. I'm assuming some change has occured in fdisk.
I had one strange thing happen - which
Dave,
Thanks, got it.
Bob
Dave Wreski wrote:
>
> > Okay so I'm stupid! I installed RH and made several paritions named
> > /data1 and /data2 but they do not mount. I do not see them in
> > linuxconf's listing of partitions. Is there a tool to show all
> > patitions on all HDs [or can I sta
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bob Hartung wrote:
> Hi,
> Okay so I'm stupid! I installed RH and made several
> paritions named /data1 and /data2 but they do not mount. I
> do not see them in linuxconf's listing of partitions. Is
> there a tool to show all patitions on all HDs [or can I
> start up disk
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
