Ed Greshko wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:42, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
So you think,
fsck (the linux-fsck) would be able to check AND repair a solaris partition?
Sorry, I answered the "general" question about a check/repair utility.
The answer is, I don't know. But, if you give me a d
Steve Phillips wrote:
At 09:42 p.m. 13/10/2003, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:12, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
what filesystem does solaris use?
Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
I've got a SPARC station running Solaris 8. They indicated UFS as the
file syst
At 09:42 p.m. 13/10/2003, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:12, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
what filesystem does solaris use?
Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
I've got a SPARC station running Solaris 8. They indicated UFS as the
file system type.
Could I read
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:42, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
> So you think,
> fsck (the linux-fsck) would be able to check AND repair a solaris partition?
Sorry, I answered the "general" question about a check/repair utility.
The answer is, I don't know. But, if you give me a day (or so) I can
put
Ed Greshko wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:12, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
what filesystem does solaris use?
Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
I've got a SPARC station running Solaris 8. They indicated UFS as the
file system type.
Could I read such a partition under Linux?
I've not t
Steve Phillips wrote:
At 09:12 p.m. 13/10/2003, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
Hello,
what filesystem does solaris use?
Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
Sun uses UFS which (if my memory serves) is a BSD type filesystem
Could I read such a partition under Linux?
Yes, but be _very_ careful, and you
At 09:12 p.m. 13/10/2003, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
Hello,
what filesystem does solaris use?
Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
Sun uses UFS which (if my memory serves) is a BSD type filesystem
Could I read such a partition under Linux?
Yes, but be _very_ careful, and you will probably need to recomp
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:12, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
> what filesystem does solaris use?
> Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
I've got a SPARC station running Solaris 8. They indicated UFS as the
file system type.
> Could I read such a partition under Linux?
I've not tried it...but mount has UF
Hello,
what filesystem does solaris use?
Is it "System V" or maybe "JFS" ?
Could I read such a partition under Linux?
Are there some repair-tools for such filesystems?
Regards
Cornelius
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-l
Yes, linux can mount multiple fat32 partitions.
Wade
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of KC
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux reading FAT32 partitions
Can i partition a drive multiple times
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:39:44PM -0600, KC wrote:
> Can i partition a drive multiple times? Like partitioning a FAT32
> 120gb
> drive, into 3 32gb partitions, is that a possible workaround? Or can linux
> only read one FAT32 parition. And do I need to install an RPM for FAT32
>
Can i partition a drive multiple times? Like partitioning a FAT32 120gb
drive, into 3 32gb partitions, is that a possible workaround? Or can linux
only read one FAT32 parition. And do I need to install an RPM for FAT32
support?
KC
- Original Message -
From: "Bo Peng" <[EM
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 07:54:34PM -0600, KC wrote:
> > Yes. The partition size can not exceed 32G though.
> What if the partition is larger than 32gb?
> and is there any way around this, another file system that can have a much
> larger max capacity, but still readable by windows and linux (NTFS
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Linux reading FAT32 partitions
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:09:30PM -0600, KC wrote:
> > I would like to have an external firewire drive, that both my windows
and
> > linux machines can read. The drive is format
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:09:30PM -0600, KC wrote:
> I would like to have an external firewire drive, that both my windows and
> linux machines can read. The drive is formatted with FAT32, can RH9 read
> this natively? Or do i need to install an RPM or something?
Yes. The partition size can not
I would like to have an external firewire drive, that both my windows and
linux machines can read. The drive is formatted with FAT32, can RH9 read
this natively? Or do i need to install an RPM or something?
KC
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat
I'm not sure if this went through last time, so I'll re-post to make sure.
Accept my appologies if this is a double-post.
I have a bit of a conundrum. I installed RH9 a while back and created
appropriate partitions only to find that one of them is growing low on space
so I was t
: Mounting Drive Partitions
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:52:58PM -0400, Buck wrote:
> Now, if Linux allows me to mount Drive 0 Part 4 as /private and Drive
> 0 part 4 as /backup during normal use, but then allows me to
> disconnect drive 1 and replace it with drive 1 and mount
art 4 of the replacement drive as /backup without crashing when I
> do this, all is well. But if the partitions have to be assigned a
> directory name when they are formatted, I may be out of luck.
Honestly I didn't quite get what you're trying to do, but you can
easily mount diffe
ternal HDD with
4 partitions. The 4th partition is only used for experiments and
temporary storage of non-important files. The machine has a removable
HDD which was cloned exactly partition for partition from the internal
drive. The first three partitions are not assigned drive letters
rend
Hello,
I have a bit of a conundrum. I installed RH9 a while back and created
appropriate partitions only to find that one of them is growing low on space
so I was thinking of merging two partitions. Here's my present setup:
hdb1 = /boot
hdb2 = /
hdb3 = swap
hdb5 = /home
hdb6 = /home
the event of a software meltdown, the admin could boot up
on a different boot partion and automatically run reconstuction tools
(parted):
http://www.gnuguy.com/linux/partedplan.gif
http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/
I know that many laptop makers (HP, Dell, etc.) use this to restore Win
partitio
(better) ways you could do it:
>
>mount one partition under the other
>make a symbolic link from one partition into the other
>
> Both of those are going to be simpler and more efficient than
> RAIDing two partitions on the same disk.
Efficiency as in performance is not
Hi,
You can have partitions from the same disk in raid.
During the Redhat training we did that when learning raid.
regards, Willem
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > Hm... The HOWTO isn't clear on whether those partitions can reside on
&g
> > Hm... The HOWTO isn't clear on whether those partitions can reside on
> > one single disk (which is what I'm after) - does anyone know more
> > about this?
They can be on the same disk. Likewise for LVM volumes. It's less efficient
than a single large
Hi Thomas,
> Hm... The HOWTO isn't clear on whether those partitions can reside on
> one single disk (which is what I'm after) - does anyone know more
> about this?
If it doesn't say it can't be done than it probably can ;-) . Same with
other RAID versions, only i
evice /dev/sdc5
> raid-disk 1
Hm... The HOWTO isn't clear on whether those partitions can reside on
one single disk (which is what I'm after) - does anyone know more
about this?
Cheerio,
Thomas
--
==> RH List Archi
Hi Thomas,
> To make usage easier, it would be nice, if it was possible to mount
> those two partitions as one, i.e. as a user I only see one
> directory/mounting.
I guess what you are referring to is linear mode (see
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.2).
Th
uch, but that way, the large
> partition I want to use for ogg vorbis gets split into two: A smaller
> one before the hibernation partition and a larger one after.
> To make usage easier, it would be nice, if it was possible to mount
> those two partitions as one, i.e. as a user I only
artition I want to use for ogg vorbis gets split into two: A smaller
one before the hibernation partition and a larger one after.
To make usage easier, it would be nice, if it was possible to mount
those two partitions as one, i.e. as a user I only see one
directory/mounting. I seem to remember tha
rsday, September 04, 2003 9:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to chage boot up partitions
RH 9 Intel
I've moved my hard drives from the built-in IDE controller to a PCI IDE
card. What do I change to indicate to the OS to boot from the new
partitions?
Previously, the OS booted from /d
Hello Cosmo,
> I've moved my hard drives from the built-in IDE controller to a PCI IDE
> card. What do I change to indicate to the OS to boot from the new
> partitions?
I assume you updated /etc/fstab, and installed your boot loader on the new
partitions. The rest is a matter o
RH 9 Intel
I've moved my hard drives from the built-in IDE controller to a PCI IDE
card. What do I change to indicate to the OS to boot from the new
partitions?
Previously, the OS booted from /dev/hda and there were partitions on
/dev/hdb also. When it boots now, I see it trying to find d
RH 9 Intel
I've moved my hard drives from the built-in IDE controller to a PCI IDE
card. What do I change to indicate to the OS to boot from the new
partitions?
Previously, the OS booted from /dev/hda and there were partitions on
/dev/hdb also. When it boots now, I see it trying to find d
here's what i have in my fstab :
/dev/hda5 /mnt/windows1 vfat
auto,owner,users,umask=000 0 0
HTH,
-vivek
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
he rest of the
partitions disappeared. So I quit and asked for help. Do I need to
re-create the other partitions as well when I extended partition 2?
Thanks in advance,
Andy.
Her eis the output from fdisk before and I delete and re-create
partition 2
$fdisk /dev/hda
The number of cylinders for th
m
having a few problems..
I know I can't set permissions on fat32 partitions but it's the only
format that I can think of that allows me to read and write to in both
winxp and linux (apart from ntfs but writing under linux is dodgy)
So.. I have fat32.. and (as root) everything works fine.. b
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Jackman
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 7:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Resize ext2 partitions
>
> Hi,
> I'm trying to resize a partition.
mount I just
add them to the group I specified in gid?
Cheers
Kel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Johan Andersson
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mounting fat32 partitions
Hi!
Use the options
Hey all.. just a quick question..
I've mounted a partition (ide4) to /mnt/filestore successfully but I'm
having a few problems..
I know I can't set permissions on fat32 partitions but it's the only
format that I can think of that allows me to read and write to in both
winxp a
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mounting fat32 partitions
Hi!
Use the options umask= and gid= when mounting the filesystem. Ex. fstab
entry:
/dev/hdd1/mnt/filestorevfatauto,umask=007,gid=100
/Johan Andersson
Kelerion wrote:
>Hey all.. just a quick question..
>
>I
ux 6 years and the more I learn the more I
realise what little I know.. Lol
Cheers
Kel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Eduardo Gomez Noguera
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:55 PM
To: redhat list
Subject: Re: Mounting fat32 partit
ahh.. ok.. that makes sense
thanks for the help :)
cheers
Kel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Johan Andersson
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mounting fat32 partitions
Yes, or you can
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 05:40, Johan Andersson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Use the options umask= and gid= when mounting the filesystem.
> Ex. fstab entry:
> /dev/hdd1/mnt/filestorevfatauto,umask=007,gid=100
>
I remember I did that once and didnt work. If it doesnt work as is, then
change the umas
7 Jun 2003 03:53:51 -0400
From: Jerry Human <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Invisible Partitions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Everyone:
I have recently installed a 120 gig WD drive and it's great. I
partitioned it into 4 sections. The first one is C: for Windows
is an extended partition?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 03:53:51 -0400
From: Jerry Human <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Invisible Partitions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Everyone:
I have recently installed a 120 gig WD drive and it's great. I
partitioned it into 4 section
Is the 4th partition is an extended partition?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 03:53:51 -0400
From: Jerry Human <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Invisible Partitions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Everyone:
I have recently installed a 120 gig WD drive and it'
Use FIPS from Windows to partition your HD
--- Jerry Human <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: >
Hello Everyone:
>
> I have recently installed a 120 gig WD drive and
> it's great. I
> partitioned it into 4 sections. The first one is C:
> for Windows &
> drivers, the second is D: for Windows applicat
Hello Everyone:
I have recently installed a 120 gig WD drive and it's great. I
partitioned it into 4 sections. The first one is C: for Windows &
drivers, the second is D: for Windows applications, the third one is for
downloads & music, the fourth is for RedHat. I downloaded the .ISO's the
oth
use cfdisk and change it space.
regards
--- Vij Chau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > Guys,
>
> I want to use 10 gb of free space on my xp (NTFS) in
> linux.
>
> Any suggesstions on hw to do so??
>
> I was thinking using something like partition magic
> to
>
> 1. seperate 10 gb into a partition
Guys,
I want to use 10 gb of free space on my xp (NTFS) in linux.
Any suggesstions on hw to do so??
I was thinking using something like partition magic to
1. seperate 10 gb into a partition, format it and mount it as a seperate
drive in linux
2. seperate 10 gb into a partition and use partitio
intaining UNIX servers
for more than fifteen years and setting out the disk partitions is
probably the most important lesson I've learnt from my peers.
>
> So, IMHO, YMMV :-)
as you say, IMHO,YMMV.
/rant,:-)
ttfn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe ma
>/ shouldn't really be bigger than 500mb, imho.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I disagree. I'm currently using 423292, so 500 doesn't leave much head room.
The extra space is used with logs, etc. Especially when running a server.
So, IMHO, YMMV :-)
MB
--
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Willis wrote:
I've forgotten the command line for viewing all the partitions and their
sizes.
df -h
--
Anthony E. Greene <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.pobo
>I've forgotten the command line for viewing all the partitions and their
>sizes.
To see what is mounted, use: df
To see all partitions, use: fdisk
Warning, fdisk is used to modify partitions, so don't use the wrong options :-)
MB
--
e-mail:
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 16:42, Tim Willis wrote:
> I've forgotten the command line for viewing all the partitions and their
> sizes.
>
> Also, I think I've screwed up the partitions on my Dell server, for some
> reason, / is only about 500mb.
/ shouldn't rea
I've forgotten the command line for viewing all the partitions and their
sizes.
Also, I think I've screwed up the partitions on my Dell server, for some
reason, / is only about 500mb. I don't remember setting it this way, I
thought I set / to fill the rest of the free space,
antage do you think there is in the
installer clearing all partitions on the computer, rather than just the
ones on disk drives involved in the OS install? There isn't even an
option in the Kickstart Configurator to do what one would want to do 99%
of the time, which is to clear partitions only
being paranoid enough, I suppose, because in
26 years of experience doing this, I've never before seen an OS
installer clear partitions on other disk drives, much less as some sort
of default behavior.
|>oug
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> I already said "mea culpa" to the department head and she said "mea
> culpa" for not backing up her computer. (Fortunately, there was nothing
> particularly important on the computer.) Now it's time for Red Hat to
> say "mea culpa" about having a flaw in their software and to fix it, and
> fo
Doug,
I'm in the boat with the folks who say read the manual and such. That
said I would like to let you know that in the computer world 1=1 and 0=0 and
1!=0. What that means is a phrase like "remove all partitions" means
exactly that, while "remove all partions on di
ms, it'll
> blitz /dev/hda and leave /dev/hdb alone.
I never said any such thing.
> Nope, not the right answer. I want it to install to /dev/hdb, and not
> /dev/hda, so I need to tell it not to blitz the drives, and to install
> to /dev/hdb.
Right. Kickstart has an option to tell
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "Remove all existing partitions"
>
>
> Emmanuel Seyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> &
Emmanuel Seyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It could start by not zeroing partitions on disk drives uninvolved in
> > the OS installation, since there is no reason for it to do that.
> This is the part where I don't follow you. If partitions have not
> been
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:03:25AM -0500, Douglas Alan wrote:
>
> It could start by not zeroing partitions on disk drives uninvolved in
> the OS installation, since there is no reason for it to do that.
This is the part where I don't follow you.
If partitions have not been creat
ironment, isn't it? How is it
> supposed to interact with you to confirm your instructions?
It could start by not zeroing partitions on disk drives uninvolved in
the OS installation, since there is no reason for it to do that.
Other improvements might be for it to put up a splash screen at the
Edward Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I said that I cannot imagine a case where "I would want all partitions
> > on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install". Despite your
> > claims, I still would never want all partitions on all disk dri
> I said that I cannot imagine a case where "I would want all partitions
> on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install". Despite your
> claims, I still would never want all partitions on all disk drives to be
> removed during an OS install. Not for the two cases t
Douglas Alan wrote:
The point is that in those cases, kickstart's behavior would be
entirely reasonable.
No it wouldn't. It is never reasonable to destroy large amounts of data
without being quite sure that that is what the user wants.
If that were true, then 'rm -i' would be default behavior, and
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In fact, I explicitly told Kickstart to *only* make partitions on
> > the boot disk drive. It has no good reason to mess with the
> > partition tables of disk drives that it is not putting partitions
> > onto.
> Y
Douglas Alan wrote:
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's a mighty literal interpretation of "all" when it comes to
valuable data. I can't imagine any circumstance when I would want all
partitions on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install,
1.
nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In that case, you can explicitly delete these partitions or configure the
> > install program to delete these partitions for you, rather than have the
> > install program *automatically* delete them for you.
> looking at the kicksta
Douglas Alan said:
> In that case, you can explicitly delete these partitions or configure the
> install program to delete these partitions for you, rather than have the
> install program *automatically* delete them for you.
looking at the kickstart docs(again never used it myself), th
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Douglas Alan wrote:
>>> I haven't used kickstart myself but I would expect it to remove all
>>> partitions on all disks if you told it to remove all existing
>>> partitions ..
>> That's a mig
Douglas Alan wrote:
I haven't used kickstart myself but I would expect it to remove all
partitions on all disks if you told it to remove all existing
partitions ..
That's a mighty literal interpretation of "all" when it comes to
valuable data. I can't imagine any circu
nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Umm, if I had, err, by chance, configured Kickstart to "remove all
> > existing partitions", it wouldn't happen to remove all partitions on ALL
> > disk drives, would it, and not just the boot disk drive?
> I haven
Douglas Alan said:
> Umm, if I had, err, by chance, configured Kickstart to "remove all
> existing partitions", it wouldn't happen to remove all partitions on ALL
> disk drives, would it, and not just the boot disk drive?
I haven't used kickstart myself but I
Umm, if I had, err, by chance, configured Kickstart to "remove all
existing partitions", it wouldn't happen to remove all partitions on ALL
disk drives, would it, and not just the boot disk drive?
And if it would, is there any way that I might recover them? (The ones
on the ot
James Francis wrote:
> Cannon, Andrew wrote:
>> Does that apply to LVM partitions too?
> For LVM, use e2fsadm. Do a man on e2fsadm. It will work flawlessly.
> If you are using ext3 partitions, I would change them to ext2 first.
> 1. Umount the partition.
> 2. Remove th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm suprised no-one has suggested using parted. The best way I've
> found for using parted is run linux in single user mode, unmount
> the /var filesystem and from the command-line run parted.
>
> GNU Parted is a very nice tool but I don't remember it's poss
Cannon, Andrew wrote:
> Does that apply to LVM partitions too?
For LVM, use e2fsadm. Do a man on e2fsadm. It will work flawlessly. If
you are using ext3 partitions, I would change them to ext2 first.
1. Umount the partition.
2. Remove the journal, tune2fs -O^has_journal /dev//
3. Use e2fs
Which is why he should do the print in parted. He may be able to get
assistance with the resizing on this list.
The info docs have very good examples on what to do if you have
hard-drive space but it's scattered around the drive.
Incidently, I've found that some older versions of parted don't w
>From http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/upgraderoottolvm.html:
"Parted doesn't understand LVM partitions [so this has to be done using
fdisk]"
How, by the way, it seems that parted can shrink partitions
(http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/). However I seem to remember having
s
Does that apply to LVM partitions too?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Making Partitions Bigger?
I'm suprised no-one has suggested using parted. The best way I
I'm suprised no-one has suggested using parted. The best way I've found
for using parted is run linux in single user mode, unmount the /var
filesystem and from the command-line run parted.
GNU Parted is a very nice tool but I don't remember it's possible to
decrease partition size. W
ne! Oh, you'll
> need to know which is your /var partition.
>
> Simple... if you aren't sure about parted, the info file for parted is
> *really* good, with lots of examples and everything. If you don't have
> this, try www.gnu.org and look at their manua
I'm suprised no-one has suggested using parted. The best way I've found
for using parted is run linux in single user mode, unmount the /var
filesystem and from the command-line run parted.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# init 1
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> System is running RedHat 7.3. Below is the structure of my partitions
> currently.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df -h
> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda6 372M 78M 275M 22% /
> /dev/sda1
ructure of my partitions
>currently.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df -h
>FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>/dev/sda6 372M 78M 275M 22% /
>/dev/sda1 45M 8.8M 34M 21% /boot
>/dev/sda5 20G 857M 18G 5% /home
>n
is running RedHat 7.3. Below is the structure of my partitions
currently.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df -h
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6 372M 78M 275M 22% /
/dev/sda1 45M 8.8M 34M 21% /boot
/dev/sda5 20G 857M 18G 5
System is running RedHat 7.3. Below is the structure of my partitions
currently.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df -h
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6 372M 78M 275M 22% /
/dev/sda1 45M 8.8M 34M 21% /boot
/dev/sda5 20G 857M
System is running RedHat 7.3. Below is the structure of my partitions
currently.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df -h
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6 372M 78M 275M 22% /
/dev/sda1 45M 8.8M 34M 21% /boot
/dev/sda5 20G 857M
proper sharing with windows and linux without
hastles.
-Original Message-
From: Cannon, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 7 March 2003 7:15 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: fat32 partitions.
>From the Micro$oft web site:
The maximum possible number of
rom: Mirabella, Mathew J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:39 PM
To: RedHat List
Subject: fat32 partitions.
Hi all.
can anyone tell me if there is a size limit to a fat32 partition.
i was under the impression that they can only be 32 GB in size. is this
correct?
If it
> Hi all.
> can anyone tell me if there is a size limit to a fat32 partition.
> i was under the impression that they can only be 32 GB in size. is this
correct?
> If it is possible, and if i create a larger one than that, what problems
may i have?
> this is so i can share data between windows xp a
Hi all.
can anyone tell me if there is a size limit to a fat32 partition.
i was under the impression that they can only be 32 GB in size. is this correct?
If it is possible, and if i create a larger one than that, what problems may i have?
this is so i can share data between windows xp and red hat
linux in a computer with a hard disk with12GB and
256MB of memory. I want to create partitions to /boot, / (root),
/var, /tmp, /usr, /home, swap. What is the best size for each one ?
This computer will be a work station, not a server. I will develop
applications on it.
For an average home m
ll install linux in a computer with a hard disk with12GB and
> >256MB of memory. I want to create partitions to /boot, / (root),
> >/var, /tmp, /usr, /home, swap. What is the best size for each one ?
> >
> >This computer will be a work station, not a server. I will dev
/:2.5G, /usr:5G, /var:1.5G, /boot:300M, /home:900M,
--- Rodrigo Pereira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I will install linux in a computer with a hard disk with12GB and 256MB
>of memory. I want to create partitions to /boot, / (root), /var, /tmp,
>/usr, /home, sw
As far as I know, is good to create partitions for that directories.
Example: /var is a log directory, if it is in the / (root) partition it
will consume megas and megas of disk. If the disk if full and an
application tries to create a log file it will halt your system. So a good
strategy is to
1 - 100 of 298 matches
Mail list logo
