Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #188930 > unrolled thread

Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-13 04:50 +0100
    Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-11-13 07:20 +0100
      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-13 16:30 +0100
        Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-13 20:10 +0100
          Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-13 21:10 +0100
          Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-14 00:10 +0100
            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-14 01:50 +0100
              Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-14 03:40 +0100
                Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-14 04:00 +0100
                  Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-14 04:50 +0100
                  Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-16 19:40 +0100
                    Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-16 20:10 +0100
                      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-16 23:40 +0100
                    Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-16 20:30 +0100
                      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-16 21:20 +0100
                        Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-29 19:10 +0100
                          Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-29 19:20 +0100
                            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-29 19:50 +0100
                          Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-29 19:40 +0100
                            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-29 21:40 +0100
                              Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-29 22:00 +0100
                                Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-29 22:40 +0100
                                  Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-30 03:20 +0100
                              Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-29 22:10 +0100
                                Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-29 23:10 +0100
                      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-17 00:00 +0100
                Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-11-29 10:10 +0100
        Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-11-13 20:20 +0100
          Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-14 00:30 +0100
            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-11-14 00:40 +0100
    Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2017-11-13 10:00 +0100
      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-13 17:00 +0100
        Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2017-11-13 21:30 +0100
    Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-11-13 13:00 +0100
      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-11-13 17:10 +0100
        Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-13 18:10 +0100
      Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-13 17:10 +0100
        Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-13 20:00 +0100
          Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-29 04:20 +0100
            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-11-29 08:10 +0100
            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-29 10:10 +0100
              Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2017-11-29 19:00 +0100
            Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-29 20:00 +0100
              Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-11-29 20:40 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#188930 — Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot

My first Linux install was about one year ago. After some missteps, I 
have used Debian 8 in reasonable satisfaction on the desktop during that 
year. Now I want to leave 8 in place and do a network install for Debian 
9 on the same disk and switch back and forth at boot time. LVM reports 
as follows:

dan@debian:/$ sudo vgdisplay -C
   VG           #PV #LV #SN Attr    VSize      VFree
   debian-vg   1     5     0    wz--n- 976.56g 938.20g

Currently, Debian 8 needs less than 40g for me as you can see:

dan@debian:/$ sudo lvdisplay -C
   LV             VG                Attr           LSize   ...
   home       debian-vg     -wi-ao---- 10.00g
   root         debian-vg     -wi-ao---- 8.38g
   swap_1    debian-vg     -wi-ao---- 7.81g
   tmp          debian-vg     -wi-ao---- 380.00m
   var           debian-vg     -wi-ao---- 11.79g

So there is plenty of disk space for the two Debians and more besides. 
The question is how to prepare to install 9? My guess is to define 
another volume group called debian9-vg perhaps but how will this be 
recognized during network install? I've clobbered stuff before during 
installs and I'm gun shy. Maybe there is a better way. Any thoughts on 
this will be appreciated.


  -Dan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#188935

On 11/12/17 19:27, Dan Norton wrote:
> My first Linux install was about one year ago. After some missteps, I 
> have used Debian 8 in reasonable satisfaction on the desktop during that 
> year. Now I want to leave 8 in place and do a network install for Debian 
> 9 on the same disk and switch back and forth at boot time.

I think your best bet is to migrate from Debian 8 to Debian 9:

1.  Image, backup, and/or archive everything.  You will especially want 
to get a copy of the /etc tree onto a USB flash drive so you can see 
LVM, fstab, etc., configuration settings for mounting the Debian 8 disk 
under Debian 9.

2.  Put your bulk data onto a separate drive or a file server/ NAS.

3.  If your computer has a spare drive bay, buy a new drive, unplug your 
old drive, install the new drive, install Debian 9 onto the new drive, 
reconnect the old drive and mount read-only under Debian 9, and migrate 
your settings and remaining data from the old drive to the new drive. 
Your BIOS/UEFI should allow you to boot from either drive during this 
process.  So long as you don't damage the Debian 8 disk, you can always 
fall back to Debian 8 if the migration goes badly.

4.  If you computer does not have a spare drive bay, buy a new drive and 
a USB external drive enclosure, put your old drive in the enclosure, 
install the new drive, install Debian 9 onto the new drive, plug in the 
old drive and mount read-only under Debian 9, and migrate your settings 
and remaining data from the old drive to the new drive.  Again, your 
BIOS/UEFI should allow you to boot from either drive and you can fall 
back to Debian 8 if necessary.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188949

On 11/13/2017 01:10 AM, David Christensen wrote:
> On 11/12/17 19:27, Dan Norton wrote:
>> My first Linux install was about one year ago. After some missteps, I 
>> have used Debian 8 in reasonable satisfaction on the desktop during 
>> that year. Now I want to leave 8 in place and do a network install 
>> for Debian 9 on the same disk and switch back and forth at boot time.
>
> I think your best bet is to migrate from Debian 8 to Debian 9:
>
> 1.  Image, backup, and/or archive everything.  You will especially 
> want to get a copy of the /etc tree onto a USB flash drive so you can 
> see LVM, fstab, etc., configuration settings for mounting the Debian 8 
> disk under Debian 9.

Please say more about the configuration settings. I back up /home and 
/var. The git stuff is in /opt and pushed to GitHub. Should the /etc 
tree be backed up also? How would the settings be used from 9?

>
> 2.  Put your bulk data onto a separate drive or a file server/ NAS.
>
> 3.  If your computer has a spare drive bay, buy a new drive, unplug 
> your old drive, install the new drive, install Debian 9 onto the new 
> drive, reconnect the old drive and mount read-only under Debian 9, and 
> migrate your settings and remaining data from the old drive to the new 
> drive. Your BIOS/UEFI should allow you to boot from either drive 
> during this process.  So long as you don't damage the Debian 8 disk, 
> you can always fall back to Debian 8 if the migration goes badly.
>
> 4.  If you computer does not have a spare drive bay, buy a new drive 
> and a USB external drive enclosure, put your old drive in the 
> enclosure, install the new drive, install Debian 9 onto the new drive, 
> plug in the old drive and mount read-only under Debian 9, and migrate 
> your settings and remaining data from the old drive to the new drive.  
> Again, your BIOS/UEFI should allow you to boot from either drive and 
> you can fall back to Debian 8 if necessary.
>
Sobering advice - good! Makes me re-think some things. A bit inefficient 
WRT disk space.
You did say "migrate" and not "upgrade" as I first read. Thanks David.

  - Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188955

Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 10:26 (UTC-0500):

> David Christensen wrote:

>> Dan Norton wrote:

>>> My first Linux install was about one year ago. After some missteps, I 
>>> have used Debian 8 in reasonable satisfaction on the desktop during 
>>> that year. Now I want to leave 8 in place and do a network install 
>>> for Debian 9 on the same disk and switch back and forth at boot time.

>> I think your best bet is to migrate from Debian 8 to Debian 9:

>> 1.  Image, backup, and/or archive everything.  You will especially 
>> want to get a copy of the /etc tree onto a USB flash drive so you can 
>> see LVM, fstab, etc., configuration settings for mounting the Debian 8 
>> disk under Debian 9.

> Please say more about the configuration settings.

All my machines are multiboot. Few have as few as 4 operating system
installations, most have more than 12, and most of those not running RAID use
only one disk.

There's no need for separate home file systems to keep one installation from
causing corruption to another's user settings. Simply do not reuse UIDs[1].

On your first, your Jessie probably has a user dan with UID 1000. On the next,
don't use 1000 for user dan. Pick any other number, e.g. 1200 for user dan in
Stretch. During Stretch installation make the initial user dan8 or dan01 using
Jessie's UID (probably 1000) for dan.

In Jessie, create a new user dan2 or dan09 using the UID you picked for Stretch.

Booted to either, the homedir of the other can optionally be bind mounted as a
subdir of the current dan for more convenient data access without interference
with settings of the other. Either way you boot, you'll be user "dan", but
without risk of settings corruption.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_identifier
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188957

On 11/13/2017 02:08 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 10:26 (UTC-0500):
>
>> David Christensen wrote:
>>> Dan Norton wrote:
>>>> My first Linux install was about one year ago. After some missteps, I
>>>> have used Debian 8 in reasonable satisfaction on the desktop during
>>>> that year. Now I want to leave 8 in place and do a network install
>>>> for Debian 9 on the same disk and switch back and forth at boot time.
>>> I think your best bet is to migrate from Debian 8 to Debian 9:
>>> 1.  Image, backup, and/or archive everything.  You will especially
>>> want to get a copy of the /etc tree onto a USB flash drive so you can
>>> see LVM, fstab, etc., configuration settings for mounting the Debian 8
>>> disk under Debian 9.
>> Please say more about the configuration settings.
> All my machines are multiboot. Few have as few as 4 operating system
> installations, most have more than 12, and most of those not running RAID use
> only one disk.

Excellent. You have my undivided attention :-)
>
> There's no need for separate home file systems to keep one installation from
> causing corruption to another's user settings. Simply do not reuse UIDs[1].
>
> On your first, your Jessie probably has a user dan with UID 1000. On the next,
> don't use 1000 for user dan. Pick any other number, e.g. 1200 for user dan in
> Stretch. During Stretch installation make the initial user dan8 or dan01 using
> Jessie's UID (probably 1000) for dan.
>
> In Jessie, create a new user dan2 or dan09 using the UID you picked for Stretch.

Interesting.

>
> Booted to either, the homedir of the other can optionally be bind mounted as a
> subdir of the current dan for more convenient data access without interference
> with settings of the other. Either way you boot, you'll be user "dan", but
> without risk of settings corruption.
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_identifier

I'm going to study this and I may have questions later.

Thanks, Felix

  - Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188962

On 11/13/2017 02:08 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 10:26 (UTC-0500):
>
>> David Christensen wrote:
>>> Dan Norton wrote:
>>>> My first Linux install was about one year ago. After some missteps, I
>>>> have used Debian 8 in reasonable satisfaction on the desktop during
>>>> that year. Now I want to leave 8 in place and do a network install
>>>> for Debian 9 on the same disk and switch back and forth at boot time.
>>> I think your best bet is to migrate from Debian 8 to Debian 9:
>>> 1.  Image, backup, and/or archive everything.  You will especially
>>> want to get a copy of the /etc tree onto a USB flash drive so you can
>>> see LVM, fstab, etc., configuration settings for mounting the Debian 8
>>> disk under Debian 9.
>> Please say more about the configuration settings.
> All my machines are multiboot. Few have as few as 4 operating system
> installations, most have more than 12, and most of those not running RAID use
> only one disk.
>
> There's no need for separate home file systems to keep one installation from
> causing corruption to another's user settings. Simply do not reuse UIDs[1].
>
> On your first, your Jessie probably has a user dan with UID 1000. On the next,
> don't use 1000 for user dan. Pick any other number, e.g. 1200 for user dan in
> Stretch. During Stretch installation make the initial user dan8 or dan01 using
> Jessie's UID (probably 1000) for dan.

Do you pick a UID during install somehow or do you login as root before 
anything else and edit /etc/passwd?

  - Dan
>
> In Jessie, create a new user dan2 or dan09 using the UID you picked for Stretch.
>
> Booted to either, the homedir of the other can optionally be bind mounted as a
> subdir of the current dan for more convenient data access without interference
> with settings of the other. Either way you boot, you'll be user "dan", but
> without risk of settings corruption.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_identifier

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188967

Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 18:04 (UTC-0500):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> There's no need for separate home file systems to keep one installation from
>> causing corruption to another's user settings. Simply do not reuse UIDs[1].

>> On your first, your Jessie probably has a user dan with UID 1000. On the next,
>> don't use 1000 for user dan. Pick any other number, e.g. 1200 for user dan in
>> Stretch. During Stretch installation make the initial user dan8 or dan01 using
>> Jessie's UID (probably 1000) for dan.

> Do you pick a UID during install somehow or do you login as root before 
> anything else and edit /etc/passwd?

I could have been clearer. "During installation" isn't necessarily the correct
time for user management. I don't remember whether Stretch forces ordinary user
creation at installation time, or leaves it up to the admin to do when he chooses.

With installers that force creation of an ordinary user in addition to providing
a root password, or that don't permit UID selection for an ordinary user, create
a throwaway user. On first boot after installation, login as root and use ls -n,
groupadd, useradd, userdel, etc. to delete the throwaway, and manage users as
you wish. Editing /etc/passwd should not be necessary, but is an option
available to the adventurous.

>> In Jessie, create a new user dan2 or dan09 using the UID you picked for Stretch.

>> Booted to either, the homedir of the other can optionally be bind mounted as a
>> subdir of the current dan for more convenient data access without interference
>> with settings of the other. Either way you boot, you'll be user "dan", but
>> without risk of settings corruption.

>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_identifier-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188968

On 11/13/2017 07:42 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 18:04 (UTC-0500):
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>>> There's no need for separate home file systems to keep one installation from
>>> causing corruption to another's user settings. Simply do not reuse UIDs[1].
>>> On your first, your Jessie probably has a user dan with UID 1000. On the next,
>>> don't use 1000 for user dan. Pick any other number, e.g. 1200 for user dan in
>>> Stretch. During Stretch installation make the initial user dan8 or dan01 using
>>> Jessie's UID (probably 1000) for dan.
>> Do you pick a UID during install somehow or do you login as root before
>> anything else and edit /etc/passwd?
> I could have been clearer. "During installation" isn't necessarily the correct
> time for user management. I don't remember whether Stretch forces ordinary user
> creation at installation time, or leaves it up to the admin to do when he chooses.
>
> With installers that force creation of an ordinary user in addition to providing
> a root password, or that don't permit UID selection for an ordinary user, create
> a throwaway user. On first boot after installation, login as root and use ls -n,
> groupadd, useradd, userdel, etc. to delete the throwaway, and manage users as
> you wish. Editing /etc/passwd should not be necessary, but is an option
> available to the adventurous.

Gee, I had it bracketed :-)
I'll gladly refrain from editing /etc/passwd thank you.

How do you set up LVM so that install does not clobber one of the 
siblings? During installation, for partitioning, do you pick "Manual" or 
"Guided -*" ?

  - Dan
>
>>> In Jessie, create a new user dan2 or dan09 using the UID you picked for Stretch.
>>> Booted to either, the homedir of the other can optionally be bind mounted as a
>>> subdir of the current dan for more convenient data access without interference
>>> with settings of the other. Either way you boot, you'll be user "dan", but
>>> without risk of settings corruption.
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_identifier--
> "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
> get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)
>
>   Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188970

Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 21:38 (UTC-0500):

> How do you set up LVM so that install does not clobber one of the 
> siblings? During installation, for partitioning, do you pick "Manual" or 
> "Guided -*" ?

I don't think I've ever used Debian's, or any Debian derivative's, "guided". I
can't remember the last time I didn't pick manual, after *fully* preparing in
advance to my specifications.

Manual will list what partitions and volumes exist, so if you've fully prepared
logical volumes in advance, all that should need to be done within manual is
select mount points and mount options for those you wish used. If volumes exist
but are not formatted, then formatting would be a third selection using manual.
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188971

On 11/13/2017 09:52 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 21:38 (UTC-0500):
>
>> How do you set up LVM so that install does not clobber one of the
>> siblings? During installation, for partitioning, do you pick "Manual" or
>> "Guided -*" ?
> I don't think I've ever used Debian's, or any Debian derivative's, "guided". I
> can't remember the last time I didn't pick manual, after *fully* preparing in
> advance to my specifications.
>
> Manual will list what partitions and volumes exist, so if you've fully prepared
> logical volumes in advance, all that should need to be done within manual is
> select mount points and mount options for those you wish used. If volumes exist
> but are not formatted, then formatting would be a third selection using manual.

OK, I may be able to do that. Thanks for your help.

  - Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189039

On 11/13/2017 09:52 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 21:38 (UTC-0500):
>
>> How do you set up LVM so that install does not clobber one of the
>> siblings? During installation, for partitioning, do you pick "Manual" or
>> "Guided -*" ?
> I don't think I've ever used Debian's, or any Debian derivative's, "guided". I
> can't remember the last time I didn't pick manual, after *fully* preparing in
> advance to my specifications.
>
> Manual will list what partitions and volumes exist, so if you've fully prepared
> logical volumes in advance, all that should need to be done within manual is
> select mount points and mount options for those you wish used. If volumes exist
> but are not formatted, then formatting would be a third selection using manual.

A better description of what I want is "multiboot", instead of "dual 
boot" in this thread. I can see having up to 4 systems installed, all 
Debians, on one disk drive. There is an item in [1] which I see that reads:

   6. Disable LVM support

which is puzzling. Can multiboot be set up within LVM on one disk drive? 
Or, is it necessary to disable  LVM, define multiple logical partitions 
with fdisk or parted for example, install in these partitions, and then 
set up LVM separately on each system?

[1] http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/partitioningindex.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189041

Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-16 13:34 (UTC-0500):

> A better description of what I want is "multiboot", instead of "dual 
> boot" in this thread. I can see having up to 4 systems installed, all 
> Debians, on one disk drive. There is an item in [1] which I see that reads:

>    6. Disable LVM support

If you look farther down your cite you'll find "What is LVM?". "Disabling LVM"
is only applicable to the OS/2 type of LVM. It causes the OS/2 kernel to use
native DOS-style FIFO assignment of drive letters.

> which is puzzling. Can multiboot be set up within LVM on one disk drive? 

Yes!

> Or, is it necessary to disable  LVM, define multiple logical partitions 
> with fdisk or parted for example, install in these partitions, and then 
> set up LVM separately on each system?

That would defeat most of the value of Linux LVM.

> [1] http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/partitioningindex.html
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189048

On 11/16/2017 02:06 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-16 13:34 (UTC-0500):
>
>> A better description of what I want is "multiboot", instead of "dual
>> boot" in this thread. I can see having up to 4 systems installed, all
>> Debians, on one disk drive. There is an item in [1] which I see that reads:
>>     6. Disable LVM support
> If you look farther down your cite you'll find "What is LVM?". "Disabling LVM"
> is only applicable to the OS/2 type of LVM. It causes the OS/2 kernel to use
> native DOS-style FIFO assignment of drive letters.
>
>> which is puzzling. Can multiboot be set up within LVM on one disk drive?
> Yes!
>

OK, great!

Now I'll try to figure out whether each system should have its own 
volume group or its own logical volume within one vg. Would install go 
easier one way or the other?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189042

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:34:52 -0500
Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2017 09:52 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> > Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-13 21:38 (UTC-0500):
> >  
> >> How do you set up LVM so that install does not clobber one of the
> >> siblings? During installation, for partitioning, do you pick
> >> "Manual" or "Guided -*" ?  
> > I don't think I've ever used Debian's, or any Debian derivative's,
> > "guided". I can't remember the last time I didn't pick manual,
> > after *fully* preparing in advance to my specifications.
> >
> > Manual will list what partitions and volumes exist, so if you've
> > fully prepared logical volumes in advance, all that should need to
> > be done within manual is select mount points and mount options for
> > those you wish used. If volumes exist but are not formatted, then
> > formatting would be a third selection using manual.  
> 
> A better description of what I want is "multiboot", instead of "dual 
> boot" in this thread. I can see having up to 4 systems installed, all 
> Debians, on one disk drive. There is an item in [1] which I see that
> reads:
> 
>    6. Disable LVM support
> 
> which is puzzling. Can multiboot be set up within LVM on one disk
> drive? Or, is it necessary to disable  LVM, define multiple logical
> partitions with fdisk or parted for example, install in these
> partitions, and then set up LVM separately on each system?

I see the date of the page is 2015, but to be honest, a lot of this
page is completely obsolete, even more so if you're not using DOS, OS/2
or early Windows. I would not even swear that item 6, LVM, even refers
to the Linux system. There's certainly no problem about mixing multiple
booting with lvm.

A volume group would normally be declared within a single old-style IBM
partition, but doesn't have to be. Think of multiple hard drives, each
containing multiple old-style partitions, then think of multiple lvm
volume groups, each with multiple volumes, roughly overlaid on the
drives and partitions but not physically matching them. A volume group
can consist of multiple complete partitions on different drives, and
the volumes it contains need not bear any relationship to the
underlying partitions.

Multiple OSes will still use one overall bootloader, which may or may
not redirect to other bootloaders. It is common, therefore, to use a
single physical partition for /boot, common to all *nix OSes, but by no
means necessary. /boot can be an LVM volume if you wish, but a booting
problem is slightly easier to deal with if the kernel and grub stuff is
in a standard partition, you don't need to worry about looking up the
lvm commands in addition to the grub set.

My workstation, for example, has a 1GB primary partition for /boot, and
the rest of the drive is a second primary partition which maps exactly
to a volume group. The volume group is then divided into volumes, which
mostly act like old-style partitions, at least as far as mounting goes.
You can have a lot of them. 

I have two drives set up the same, as I migrated from one to a newer
one. After adjustment, the grub installation of the new drive handles
the boot, and the kernel used by the old system lives in the /boot
partition of the old drive. All of this could have been integrated into
one volume group, but it's two because that's how the system evolved. I
could pull the old drive, which I hardly ever touch now, plonk it into
another PC and boot it with minimal fiddling about.

So you have a common grub, basically from the latest installation
unless you tell the installer otherwise, and before the installation is
finished it should have detected any other bootable OSes anywhere in
the hardware. You've been advised not to share other partitions, even
/home, but several /homes can live in differently-named lvm volumes in
the same volume group. Or not, by your preference. You can, for the
most part, treat volumes as partitions, and not worry about whether
they are primary or logical.

You should probably track down a few tutorials on multiboot and lvm,
read through them to get a feel for what needs doing. It's always
difficult reading a manual for something and working out from that what
steps you need to take to do something. Things like UEFI boot and disc
encryption complicate things, so probably best to avoid them on your
first attempt(s) if the hardware allows. If you're starting with a bare
drive and your BIOS allows old-style IBM partitioning, that's the way
to go to get the hang of this.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189045

Joe composed on 2017-11-16 19:27 (UTC):

> I see the date of the page is 2015,

IIRC, that 2015 update was all about updating and/or replacing broken links.

> Multiple OSes will still use one overall bootloader, which may or may
> not redirect to other bootloaders. It is common, therefore, to use a
> single physical partition for /boot, common to all *nix OSes....

Mounting the same single primary partition as /boot to all *nix OSes invites
virtually the same trouble that installing Grub to MBR causes. Absent user
intervention, each OS thinks it owns the space, so at updates times, each stomps
on whatever is there at the time, eventually exhausting its freespace with a
multitude of diverse kernels and initrds. Only one OS, or no OS, should mount
the bootable physical partition to /boot. Others can either have their own
bootloader installed to their own / filesystem, or be used without their own
bootloader.

On most of my PCs, the bootable primary is never mounted to /boot. I manage it
manually myself, providing direct loading of kernels and initrds, as well as
chainloading entries, and configfile entries, the latter two used primarily when
prior kernels are to be booted, the former for most booting.

For someone doing multiboot the first time, it's easiest, if not a requirement,
for the first installation to have the primary mounted to /boot. The subsequent
installations either need to have no bootloader or bootloader only installed to
/; or, the newer can be configured to mount the primary on /boot, and the
original, prior to its next boot, preferably immediately prior to starting the
new installation, reconfigured to not mount the primary on /boot, not manage the
bootloader installed there, and relocate its content to its own / filesystem.

Multiboot setup is complex, one of the reasons why virtualization became
popular. There is no single right way to get where you want to go. For a
beginner it helps a lot to have an extra PC to do the learning, and for doc
access while doing the installations and configurations on the other. :-)
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189404

On 11/16/2017 03:13 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Joe composed on 2017-11-16 19:27 (UTC):
>
>> I see the date of the page is 2015,
> IIRC, that 2015 update was all about updating and/or replacing broken links.
>
>> Multiple OSes will still use one overall bootloader, which may or may
>> not redirect to other bootloaders. It is common, therefore, to use a
>> single physical partition for /boot, common to all *nix OSes....
> Mounting the same single primary partition as /boot to all *nix OSes invites
> virtually the same trouble that installing Grub to MBR causes. Absent user
> intervention, each OS thinks it owns the space, so at updates times, each stomps
> on whatever is there at the time, eventually exhausting its freespace with a
> multitude of diverse kernels and initrds. Only one OS, or no OS, should mount
> the bootable physical partition to /boot. Others can either have their own
> bootloader installed to their own / filesystem, or be used without their own
> bootloader.
>
> On most of my PCs, the bootable primary is never mounted to /boot. I manage it
> manually myself, providing direct loading of kernels and initrds, as well as
> chainloading entries, and configfile entries, the latter two used primarily when
> prior kernels are to be booted, the former for most booting.
>
> For someone doing multiboot the first time, it's easiest, if not a requirement,
> for the first installation to have the primary mounted to /boot. The subsequent
> installations either need to have no bootloader or bootloader only installed to
> /; or, the newer can be configured to mount the primary on /boot, and the
> original, prior to its next boot, preferably immediately prior to starting the
> new installation, reconfigured to not mount the primary on /boot, not manage the
> bootloader installed there, and relocate its content to its own / filesystem.

After POST, the following appears:

[...]
PXE-E53: No boot filename received
PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM.
ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed.

Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot?

Sorry to be so dense, but how do I "have the primary mounted to /boot?"


> Multiboot setup is complex, one of the reasons why virtualization became
> popular. There is no single right way to get where you want to go. For a
> beginner it helps a lot to have an extra PC to do the learning, and for doc
> access while doing the installations and configurations on the other. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189405

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:07:01 -0500
Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On 11/16/2017 03:13 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> > Joe composed on 2017-11-16 19:27 (UTC):
> >  
> >> I see the date of the page is 2015,  
> > IIRC, that 2015 update was all about updating and/or replacing
> > broken links. 
> >> Multiple OSes will still use one overall bootloader, which may or
> >> may not redirect to other bootloaders. It is common, therefore, to
> >> use a single physical partition for /boot, common to all *nix
> >> OSes....  
> > Mounting the same single primary partition as /boot to all *nix
> > OSes invites virtually the same trouble that installing Grub to MBR
> > causes. Absent user intervention, each OS thinks it owns the space,
> > so at updates times, each stomps on whatever is there at the time,
> > eventually exhausting its freespace with a multitude of diverse
> > kernels and initrds. Only one OS, or no OS, should mount the
> > bootable physical partition to /boot. Others can either have their
> > own bootloader installed to their own / filesystem, or be used
> > without their own bootloader.
> >
> > On most of my PCs, the bootable primary is never mounted to /boot.
> > I manage it manually myself, providing direct loading of kernels
> > and initrds, as well as chainloading entries, and configfile
> > entries, the latter two used primarily when prior kernels are to be
> > booted, the former for most booting.
> >
> > For someone doing multiboot the first time, it's easiest, if not a
> > requirement, for the first installation to have the primary mounted
> > to /boot. The subsequent installations either need to have no
> > bootloader or bootloader only installed to /; or, the newer can be
> > configured to mount the primary on /boot, and the original, prior
> > to its next boot, preferably immediately prior to starting the new
> > installation, reconfigured to not mount the primary on /boot, not
> > manage the bootloader installed there, and relocate its content to
> > its own / filesystem.  
> 
> After POST, the following appears:
> 
> [...]
> PXE-E53: No boot filename received
> PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM.
> ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed.
> 
> Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot?
> 
> Sorry to be so dense, but how do I "have the primary mounted
> to /boot?"
> 
> 
> > Multiboot setup is complex, one of the reasons why virtualization
> > became popular. There is no single right way to get where you want
> > to go. For a beginner it helps a lot to have an extra PC to do the
> > learning, and for doc access while doing the installations and
> > configurations on the other. :-)  
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189407

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:19:13 +0000
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

Wrong button. Let's try again:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:07:01 -0500
> Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 

> > 
> > After POST, the following appears:
> > 
> > [...]
> > PXE-E53: No boot filename received
> > PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM.
> > ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed.
> > 
> > Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot?

This goes back to before anything even knows what or where /boot is,
or partitions, or LVM, or anything. Some code needs to be written to the
drive to get the whole process started and to call grub. The hardware
will reset to the very beginning of the drive, and it needs to find the
first stage of a bootloader there. At the moment, it isn't.

> > 
> > Sorry to be so dense, but how do I "have the primary mounted
> > to /boot?"

At this point, with apparently nothing to lose, I'd get back into the
new installation with the boot disc, then try:

grub-install /dev/<your drive, not a partition>
 (which will get some bootloader code in place)

update-grub
 (which will look around, configure grub to find its own / and /boot
 and any other installed OSes, and recreate an initial ramdisk)

It looks as if no bootloader code was written to the drive during
installation. Let us hope that whatever prevented it does not prevent
grub-install from working.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189406

Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500):
> After POST, the following appears:

> [...]
> PXE-E53: No boot filename received
> PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM.
> ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed.
It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: there is no
active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of the device that you
expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition leaves the MBR untouched, so it
might not yet contain anything other than partition data. The partitioner I use
installs MBR code automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to
have this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install manually. 'man
install-mbr'.

> Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot?

Mounting happens well after the point you have reached.

> Sorry to be so dense, but how do I "have the primary mounted to /boot?"
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189413

On 11/29/2017 01:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Dan Norton composed on 2017-11-29 13:07 (UTC-0500):
>> After POST, the following appears:
>> [...]
>> PXE-E53: No boot filename received
>> PXE-MOF: Exiting PXE ROM.
>> ERROR:No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed.
> It tries to PXE boot because it finds no bootable storage device: there is no
> active partition, or no boot code in the MBR sector of the device that you
> expect to boot. Installing Grub to a partition leaves the MBR untouched, so it
> might not yet contain anything other than partition data. The partitioner I use
> installs MBR code automatically. The one in the installer may have needed to
> have this step explicitly asked for. It can be added post-install manually. 'man
> install-mbr'.
>
>> Isn't that because the primary is not mounted to /boot?
> Mounting happens well after the point you have reached.
>

Nothing found for "man install-mbr" but web search yields "How to 
Install Grub Onto Your MBR [1] which I will try.

[1] http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/grub-reinstall.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web