AARRRRGH!!! (was RE: Linux Install error)

[lug at the-leveys.us (Don Levey)]

 wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:41:14 -0500
> "Don Levey" <lug at the-leveys.us> wrote:
>
>> Well, I think I found the problem.
>> I thought I had it, but found things were getting very slow.  Trying
>> to get a root login at the console showed me massive numbers of I/O
>> errors on hdb. When I installed this last time, I had accepted the
>> formatting already on the disk in the hopes of bypassing the previous
>> problems; I tried to reinstall formatting everything from scratch.
>> Same errors.  When I rebooted(warm or cold) the BIOS gave me a SMART
>> error indicating that drive failure was imminent.  I'm arranging for
>> an exchange now; hopefully that is the cause of all the problems.
> That could be it. Also, you will be better off when you have the 2
> disks as masters on separate IDE channels. It appears that you have a
> master/slave (Note that in California, it is now illegal to use those
> terms).
>
Well, then California can arrest me...
If I put the disks on separate channels, that would mean I'd put the CD
drive(s) as slaves on each channel.  I assume this will be OK?

>> I was using a boot partition, not because of the 1024-block problem,
>> but because I had been told that the /boot partition must be on the
>> same physical drive as the MBR.  I've been able to do an XP/RH9 dual
>> boot on my wife's laptop without issue, but that's one drive only.
> Not true. It does not hurt, but I tend to prefer them being on the
> same drive. Normally the way I like to partition a system:
> 1. / partition
> 2. (swap) - you can have multiple swap partitions.
> 3. /home - you don't want to clobber this when installing a new
> release.
> 4. /usr/local - same reason as /home
> Optionally, /var - the /var file system is a very active system with
> logs and spools. On many commercial systems, /var is separate because
> of backup strategies. Also, /tmp, /var/tmp, /var/spool are all on
> separate file systems on many large systems, but I don't recommend
> this on most smaller installations. as I mentioned, I never allocate
> a separate /boot. While the separate /boot can be unmounted except
> when installing a new kernel, the argument regarding corruption,
> while valid, IMHO, is not a very strong argument.
> - --
Well, I may keep it, simply because it is still there on the drive that is
good.  I've got /, /home, /var as separate ext3 partitions, and /export as a
vfat so I can read that within Win2k (which seemed to work so far).  If/when
I reqork the machine again, or redo a new one, I won't bother with /boot.

Thanks again,
 -Don Levey