HDD Install Question - HOWTO

**Cuddles** · 12-23-2003, 02:08 PM

First thing, if I can get my WinModem working in Knoppix, I am going for the "full-blown" HD Install of Knoppix, on my old system -=- until I get the new system, which will get Knoppix HD Installed for sure.

QUESTION:
If you have two physical hard drives, a C: and a D: - one of the drives has Win98 installed on it, the other, can Knoppix be HD Installed on, and use the BIOS to switch between First HD Boot / Secondary HD Boot ?

Currently, I have this configuration running with Dual-Win98 hard drives, and I "clone" the live HD to the other one, as a form of backup. If, God forbid, a hard drive crash, I simply point my BIOS to the other hard drive, and I am able to boot the backup drive. Will this scheme work also in Debian/Knoppix? (assuming that BOTH hard drives are running the same OS)

I am sure my question is a simple one, and probably been answered somewhere, but, I don't want to trash my only working system, and I also want some reasurance that my thinking is "actually" going to work, BEFORE I screw things up.

Thanks to anyone, in advance,
Cuddles

**tearinghairout** · 12-23-2003, 02:21 PM

Hi Cuddles
I don't really understand your question. At first I thought you were saying you wanted first disk to be all Win98 and second disk to be all Knoppix, but then you said

assuming that BOTH hard drives are running the same OS)

I am not sure if you want
A)
disk one all Win98
disk two all Knoppix

or

B)
disk one partition one Win98
disk one partition two Knoppix
disk two identical copy of disk one.

Can you clarify please?

**tearinghairout** · 12-23-2003, 03:00 PM

Oh, and another thing...
You should probably avoid refering to your physical drives as C: and D:.

C: and D: are actually the names MS uses to refer to logical drives (aka partitions) on your physical drives.

If were to repartition your first disk so that it contained two partitions, then C: and D: would both refer to parts of the first disk, and your second physical disk - which is currently D: - would become E:

It is better to specifically state "first partition on first disk, second partition on first disk" etc.

Sorry if this sounds nit-picky and pedantic, but when you are dealing with potentially risky operations leading to possible data loss, it is important to use precise and unambiguous terminology.

**Cuddles** · 12-23-2003, 03:46 PM

TearingHairOut,

Your right, and in the Linux/Unix world, they are all hdx# devices, sorry.

I will clarify my previous post. Which was actually two questions.

1) Dual-OS system running [temporarily] both Win98 and Debian/Knoppix.
I have Win98 running on hdc1 - which is a physical 30 gig HD no partitioning. Where, currently my Knoppix Swap, Home, and Configs reside.
I am interested in placing Knoppix/Debian on a "full" HD Install on my hda1 - which is a physical 8 gig HD no partioning. Which I will allow Knoppix/Debian to completely use in its own format.
QUESTION #1: Can I use the BIOS to switch which HD is booted first, as in my BIOS it states: Boot Order: CD-ROM then HD Primary then HD Secondary. Switch it to point to HD Secondary then HD Primary. Will this allow Knoppix/Debian to boot from its own hd ?

Second QUESTION: Currently Win98 sits on both Primary and Secondary hda1 and hdc1 - and I "clone" the drive in Win98 to the other drive as a backup. Can this be done in Knoppix/Debian as well? Assuming that BOTH hda1 and hdc1 have the same Knoppix/Debian installed fully as its OS, this would be AFTER I throw out Win98 on the hdc1 drive.

Cuddles
[ps] thanks TearingHairOut for the assistance on my WinModem, I hope this post can be placed into reality if I can get that durn modem working

In either case, I am about to start calling myself TearingHairOutTOO - considering the problems I am having.

**budhy** · 12-23-2003, 04:10 PM

Use GRUB to solve your problems

**tearinghairout** · 12-23-2003, 04:24 PM

Question 1: Can you switch boot disks with the bios?

Yes. I don't see any reason why this won't work.

However, I would also point out that it is not really necessary.
When you install Knoppix on the hard disk, it will ask if you want to install a boot manager (usually LILO), and should automatically configure it with any existing bootable OS's.

When you boot your computer, it will present you with a menu of bootable things, and let you pick which one you want.

Question 2: Can you clone hard disks in Knoppix?

Yes. There is a program called partimage that enables you to create image files of disk partitions.

Note that the partition you wish to copy doesn't need to be the same version of Linux, or even Linux at all.

Find out more about partimage at www.partimage.org

Just one final note.
I realise that you - just like me - detest Windows and want to use Knoppix/Linux as much as possible.
However, from time to time you may want to run some program or view some web site that can really only be done with Windows.
I would recommend that you still keep a little Windows partition handy just in case.
For a specific example, I think you mentioned something about editing digital photographs. While linux has the gimp, photoshop is still a much better program, and what I use to process images from my digital camera.
Us linux "zealots" are actually pretty reasonable people, and at the end of day will simply the best tool available - irrespective of allegiance - to get the job done.

**Cuddles** · 12-23-2003, 04:40 PM

Cool, thanks again TearingHairOut, your the greatest !!!

I agree with your point, M$ isn't as bad as I come off, sometimes. But, I still think Linux is more stable, and with less issues. Besides, to learn, you have to use it, and I can't learn getting around, and even using some of the "cryptic" unix-like programs that pop-up from the KMenu, unless I am forced to use them. Or so I think. M$ has become a "crutch", one that I have leaned on for many years, I know that. I have become even more apparently aware of that now, using Knoppix. All the bells and whisles that M$ Win has, has made me forget the old MS-DOS days, and I even cringe at the thought of even starting a DOS window. Thats fine and dandy, but with Linux, the most "power" it has is in that "shell out" feature, whereas, in M$ Win, it is now its weakest.

I also agree on the point about leaving some Win laying around. Didn't really think about it, until you pointed it out. Who knows what the future brings? If something isn't as good, or does all that you want, why not use what you have? Good point. I guess where I was heading was a theory of "changing camps", so to speak, and it isn't really about what "camp" you belong to, its what does what you want. Gee, appears you CAN teach an old dog new tricks !

Thank you both; TearingHairOut, and also to Budhy ( I'll check out GRUB in the man pages

)
Cuddles

**Stephen** · 12-23-2003, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by tearinghairout

If were to repartition your first disk so that it contained two partitions, then C: and D: would both refer to parts of the first disk, and your second physical disk - which is currently D: - would become E:

This is not correct unless the second hard drive in the system were to be partitioned with only an extended partition otherwise if both HDs in the system contain a primary bootable dos partition then the drive order is first primary partition on the first ide bus is C: the primary partition on the second drive in the system is D: if there were a third dirve in the system with a primary partition it would be E: then the logical drive(s) in the extended partition(s) start getting assigned starting with the first hd in the system and moving on any cdrom devices get to start with drive letters after the last logical drive is assigned from the HD's.

**tearinghairout** · 12-23-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen

This is not correct unless the second hard drive in the system were to be partitioned with only an extended partition otherwise if both HDs in the system contain a primary bootable dos partition then the drive order is first primary partition on the first ide bus is C: the primary partition on the second drive in the system is D: if there were a third dirve in the system with a primary partition it would be E: then the logical drive(s) in the extended partition(s) start getting assigned starting with the first hd in the system and moving on any cdrom devices get to start with drive letters after the last logical drive is assigned from the HD's.

Umm... yeah, you might be right.

The point I was trying to make was that the C: D: E: drive designations are dynamic and can shift around depending on how the drive is partitioned and what OS you are running.

Where I worked once we had a W2K machine with a big NTFS and small FAT32 partition on the disk.
We booted with a DOS floppy and scared ourselves sh*tless when we found that C: was completely empty. We thought we had somehow accidentally wiped it.
It was only when someone noticed how small it was that we calmed down and realised that the C: we were looking at was the small FAT32 partition, and the NTFS partition couldn't be seen because DOS doesn't recognise NTFS.

**Stephen** · 12-23-2003, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by tearinghairout

Umm... yeah, you might be right.

The point I was trying to make was that the C: D: E: drive designations are dynamic and can shift around depending on how the drive is partitioned and what OS you are running.

Where I worked once we had a W2K machine with a big NTFS and small FAT32 partition on the disk.
We booted with a DOS floppy and scared ourselves sh*tless when we found that C: was completely empty. We thought we had somehow accidentally wiped it.
It was only when someone noticed how small it was that we calmed down and realised that the C: we were looking at was the small FAT32 partition, and the NTFS partition couldn't be seen because DOS doesn't recognise NTFS.

I understood the point you were trying to make I made the post in the interest of providing the correct information for anyone reading or searching on the forum, believe me I banged my head against the wall more than a couple of times with the stupid layout that dos used and still uses. I don't really know how the ntfs (never used it) handles the situation like that now but knowing MS probably the same broken way.