🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Morris (thunder@ozramp.ozramp.net.au) wrote:
: Sorry to keep going on... 

: I have nearly finished my machine, have most of the disk sets from when
: I used to run a Linux box, but have one question...

: I used to run on two hard disks, Linux on a 170 MB drive, and Windows 3.1
: on a 80 MB.... (tight)

: My question is, if I want to run Windows 95, and Linux, am I better to 
: purchase two hard disks, say 2x 2.5 gb and use one drive for Linux,
: and one drive for 95?  or will 95 and Linux live happily on the one disk?

They will both live happily on the one disk. I would still get the 2
2.5 GB drives tho. You can never have too much hard disk space :-)

: I know you can run both on the one drive, but I as I am wary of Lilo, I 
: prefer to use loadlin (as I am now), and boot Linux from Dos, or a menu...

I have been running linux for 2+ years now and have never had a problem with
lilo. 

: Can I still use Loadlin if i have both OS's running on the one drive, or

You sure can. However, you will need to run loadlin in dos mode, that is you
cant pop a dos shell and run loadlin, you will need to run it from your
multiboot or shut windows down to dos mode in order to run it.

: Thanks to everyone who has pointed me in the right direction so far...


hope this is helpful

Cheers
Brett


--
Brett Quinlan                   |"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user
Promotions Officer - UniCS      | friendly. Its just picky about who it 
Email: B.Quinlan@latrobe.edu.au | makes friends with."
Phone: +61 15 099 736           |            - seen on a.s.r

thunder@ozramp.ozramp.net.au (Andrew Morris) wrote:

>Sorry to keep going on... 

>I have nearly finished my machine, have most of the disk sets from when
>I used to run a Linux box, but have one question...

>I used to run on two hard disks, Linux on a 170 MB drive, and Windows 3.1
>on a 80 MB.... (tight)

>My question is, if I want to run Windows 95, and Linux, am I better to 
>purchase two hard disks, say 2x 2.5 gb and use one drive for Linux,
>and one drive for 95?  or will 95 and Linux live happily on the one disk?

>I know you can run both on the one drive, but I as I am wary of Lilo, I 
>prefer to use loadlin (as I am now), and boot Linux from Dos, or a menu...

>Can I still use Loadlin if i have both OS's running on the one drive, or
>do i need 2 drives to use loadlin for booting Linux...

>Thanks to everyone who has pointed me in the right direction so far...

>I decided on a Tyan MB w/512 k cache, Hercules 64/3D Terminator, and WD
>hardrive, as I am unsure about Seagates or Quantums... 

>Thanks in Advance (again) :)

>Andrew

Hi,

I think it will be no problem using the two OSes on one disk. IMHO I
have Linux and Win95 on one disk (2gb scsi), and I load Linux with
loadlin from a dos-partition. My Partitions are about

 300 MB Dos
1000 MB Windows95
 700 MB Linux

Now I think that I should have given Linux more space, but this
depends on personal preferences.

Hope that helps.

Bye, 
Andreas                   Andreas.Soller@dlr.de

In article <3213CE50.120EE92B@corona.iinet.net.au>, bakes@corona.iinet.net.au says...
>

STUFF DELETED

>Putting half of each on two disks
>will help to improve performance by sharing the IO load.
>

Only on a SCSI disk system as the SCSI controller is intelligent.

Craig

> thunder@ozramp.ozramp.net.au (Andrew Morris) wrote:
> 
> >Sorry to keep going on...
 (snip)
> 
> >My question is, if I want to run Windows 95, and Linux, am I better to
> >purchase two hard disks, say 2x 2.5 gb and use one drive for Linux,
> >and one drive for 95?  or will 95 and Linux live happily on the one disk?
> 
> >I know you can run both on the one drive, but I as I am wary of Lilo, I
> >prefer to use loadlin (as I am now), and boot Linux from Dos, or a menu...
> 
> >Can I still use Loadlin if i have both OS's running on the one drive, or
> >do i need 2 drives to use loadlin for booting Linux...
> 
  (snip)
> >Andrew

Putting the different OS's on different disks will not make a
significant
difference.  Putting half of each on two disks will help to improve
performance by sharing the IO load.

Don't worry to much about LILO.  As long as you set it up properly, it
won't trash your disk.  If you are REALLY worried, just install it in
the boot partition, rather than the master boot record.  If you have
any problems, boot from a floppy and change your active (boot) partition
to be your Win95 partition.

I am using LILO to boot into either Linux, Dos, or Solaris, and I will
be
adding NT to that list soon.

-- 
Steve Baker,  aka  bakes@corona.iinet.net.au
Your limitations are restricted by your goals, not the other way around.

Craig Irvine wrote:
> 
> In article <3213CE50.120EE92B@corona.iinet.net.au>, bakes@corona.iinet.net.au says...
> >
> 
> STUFF DELETED
> 
> >Putting half of each on two disks
> >will help to improve performance by sharing the IO load.
> >
> 
> Only on a SCSI disk system as the SCSI controller is intelligent.
> 

Suppose I read something from a partition in the beginning of the disk,
and at the same time swap some pages out, to make room for the new
stuff,  onto swap partition in the end of the disk.  See the heads
jumping back and forth?  
So you can minimize heads movement -> access time by putting swap on
a different physical drive (in theory, at least.)
(Of course, SCSI is what one should use in a Unix workstation...)
-- 
Dimitri
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If Jesus was Jewish, then why did he have a Puerto-Rican name?
                                                     -- Zen koan

Craig Irvine wrote:
> 
> In article <3213CE50.120EE92B@corona.iinet.net.au>, bakes@corona.iinet.net.au says...
> >
> 
> STUFF DELETED
> 
> >Putting half of each on two disks
> >will help to improve performance by sharing the IO load.
> >
> 
> Only on a SCSI disk system as the SCSI controller is intelligent.
> 
> Craig

Not exactly.  Even on an IDE system, putting (at least) the swap
partition on one drive and the rest of the system on another will allow
the heads to stay in the swap area on one disk and on your applications
in another.  Head seek is still the largest component of overhead in
drive operations.

I don't know if putting these drives on different *controllers* would
also help; I know the bandwidth of IDE controllers is kind of limited if
both disks are on the same channel.

Just my $0.02

Phil