-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Beartooth Testbedder Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:10 AM To: centos@centos.org Cc: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com; fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: [CentOS] VDQ : Triple Boot Advice?
Let me set up a Very Dumb Question (VDQ). My apologies in advance for repeating much of this to those who have been of such vast help getting me this far. (Followup to: is set as gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.general)
I have a testbed machine which currently has /dev/hda1 - 6, according to qtparted, with sizes 102 MB, 14 GB, 13 GB, 13 GB, 12 GB, and 14 MB respectively (rounded to nearest whole MB or GB). It actually boots only Ubuntu, which is on hda5. hda1 is /boot, and hda6 is swap.
I had CentOS alone on the whole hard drive, and found that Ubuntu 6.06 couldn't keep it, by any means I could find, using the GUI installer. (Dunno if that's anaconda or something else.)
Getting Ubuntu 6.06-alternate instead, I tried to stumble and stagger through text-install and manual partitioning, both for the first time -- and, not surprisingly, eventually did get Ubuntu installed, only at the price of hosing CentOS.
(If I were doing it all over, perhaps I should do the partitioning first and separately, with knoppix or gparted, or with qtparted if that has a live cd. Maybe I should Dban the whole shebang, and repartition first anyway ...)
After much help, I concluded that that release of Ubuntu had also been a mistake : getting my must-have apps onto it cost lots of grief, and the most essential, Alpine 1.0, never made it at all. That means I can't yet give Ubuntu a fair test as to filling my needs.
So now I want to install CentOS 5.1 again, Ubuntu 7.10, and Fedora 8.
The VDQ comes in three parts.
First, the sequence : I'd prefer to put the new Ubuntu onto one of the 13 GB partitions, and make it end up second in boot sequence.
I *think* I'll be safer to install it first in time, and with the GUI .iso, *not* with the text-install, which I lack the savvy to use.
Can I do that? Or does installing it first in time force me to use the first free partition? (If it does, but lets me keep the rest of the setup, I'd rather live with it than tackle the text-install again, let alone re-partition.)
Second, also about the sequence : given that all I've ever really run has been RedHat or Fedora (but I've been doing that since RH7), will I be any better off installing one of them before the other?
Third, does anyone know of an example somewhere of a grub.conf, for a machine running three linuces, which I can manage to clone once I do get all three installed?
I'm assuming that each OS will have a way of booting itself once I get to it, and that the first and hardest job will be instructing grub how to get to each, in a way that enables it to update for itself whenever any of the three gets a fresh kernel on some update. Is that right?
My experience in the past has been that grub is everywhere dense, as the mathematicians say. Not in this life will I get my head far enough around it to have a real grasp of how to configure it -- not and get it right. Man grub and its ilk wear out my fingernails as I try to climb the walls.
But I can copy and vary, or follow a recipe if it's explicit enough.
-- Beartooth Staffwright, Neo-Redneck, Double Retiree, Not Quite Clueless Linux Power User : F8, C5.1, U6.06; I have precious (very precious) little idea where up is.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Every time I dual boot a single hard drive, I always regret it. Either one of the install is messed up, and reinstalling one runs the risk of harming the others. I have managed to collect a few 20-40G drives over the years, so I always do stand-alone installs, (remove all other drives during the install), and then use the bios to pick which hard drive I want to start from. Another option is, lately, I've been using VirtualBox to run XP inside Linux, and Linux inside XP. That way I don't have to reboot, and can use "both" OS's at once. I'm using fairly old hardware, and am happy with the performance for lots of uses. (No games, though) Either way is a lot less irritation, and, should the second or third install mess something up, I don't run the risk of breaking the other installations....
Also, I usually do my installs on a 10g "base drive", get it all where I want it, and then use the gparted/clonezilla boot CD to take an image of it, (I dump it up to my samba server, but you can do it to another drive - even USB), switch out to the drive I want it on, dump the image back down and use gparted to fill up the drive. (if you build it on an 80g, you can't easily dump the image down on a 40...) One advantage is that I have a base Centos5 build that I ran all the updates on, and took an image. If I need to start over, I just restore the image, and I'm back at the base image. Don't have to go through the whole install again (just a yum update). I did this when I was trying out Amanda/Bacula for backups (I used bacula), KnowledgeTree and Maarch for Document Archiving (no decision yet), I just dumped my image down on the machine and started over. I'm going to do it for Zimbra here in a few days, cause I keep hearing all the talk, and want to see what I can use it for.
I know I didn't answer your question, 'cause I really don't try to do it that way. But I thought you might I'd share with you what I do, as I thought it might be pertinent.
Dennis