On 17 Aug 2004 09:33:21 -0700, szcs@abuse.co.uk (Sz. Csetey) wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Mark Burgo <mfburgo@atlanticbb.net> wrote in message
>> First, You should have searched google groups or the suse site. In version
>> 9.1 of suse ( actually it is a kernel 2.6 issue ) there was an issue with
>> repartitioning NTFS file systems.
>
>It's not NTFS related because sometimes it happens on FAT32 too and
>even if one used commercial partitioner before installation or a
>second disk. Parted corrupts the partition table on 2.6 kernels.
>
>SUSE fix:
>http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/0...booting91.html
>
>Parted fix:
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bu.../msg00046.html
>
>> The problem you ran into has happened to
>> many and the Suse Support Database has a write up on the problem. The
>> actual issue is ( if I remember correctly ) the 2.6 kernel and versio of
>> parted with suse 9.1 reports the wrong fs type and sets it incorrectly on
>> the disk. This causes the partion to be un bootable via grub or lilo...
>
>Parted changes the geometry in the partition table therefore Windows
>can't boot anymore in some rare cases. Not even if it's reinstalled.
>
>> Second, If you ever need to get the windows MBR back boot into Windows from
>> the CD exit the install process and run fdisk /MBR. This rewrites the MBR
>> to the windows standard.
>
>Rewriting the MBR doesn't help because the problem is the corrupted
>partition table. But the above SUSE fix should work.

thank you. I ran into this the first time, I ran a utility,( which I
can not remember it's name now), but it was a very low level one and I
could see how the numbers on that table were corrupted and pointing to
the wrong partitions.

I just finished reading that top link and know what to do now

once again thank you all that took the time out to be helpfull and
keep things positive,

thanks

>
> yes I tought Slackware users would probably use GRUB too and you are
> known as hard core.
>
> are these assumptions wrong?

Some may disagree... I use grub and when I setup a dual boot box, I
_ALWAYS_ install grub on the /boot partition (50 meg). Peel of the
first 512 bytes to a file;

dd if=/dev/hda2 of=hda2.lnx bs=512 count=1

copy it to C:\ and add to the boot.ini;

C:\HDA2.LNX="Slackware 9.1"

Don't know about the hard core stuff, but I for one don't like looooong
post. Way to much reading.
--
Robert - slackware

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:41:23 GMT, ashelley@inlandkwpp.com wrote:

>
>>yes I tought Slackware users would probably use GRUB too and you are
>>known as hard core.
>>
>>are these assumptions wrong?
>
>slackware uses lilo by default.

AH ok SORRY to all Slackware fans.

On 17 Aug 2004 09:33:21 -0700, szcs@abuse.co.uk (Sz. Csetey) wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Mark Burgo <mfburgo@atlanticbb.net> wrote in message
>> First, You should have searched google groups or the suse site. In version
>> 9.1 of suse ( actually it is a kernel 2.6 issue ) there was an issue with
>> repartitioning NTFS file systems.
>
>It's not NTFS related because sometimes it happens on FAT32 too and
>even if one used commercial partitioner before installation or a
>second disk. Parted corrupts the partition table on 2.6 kernels.
>
>SUSE fix:
>http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/0...booting91.html
>
>Parted fix:
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bu.../msg00046.html
>
>> The problem you ran into has happened to
>> many and the Suse Support Database has a write up on the problem. The
>> actual issue is ( if I remember correctly ) the 2.6 kernel and versio of
>> parted with suse 9.1 reports the wrong fs type and sets it incorrectly on
>> the disk. This causes the partion to be un bootable via grub or lilo...
>
>Parted changes the geometry in the partition table therefore Windows
>can't boot anymore in some rare cases. Not even if it's reinstalled.
>
>> Second, If you ever need to get the windows MBR back boot into Windows from
>> the CD exit the install process and run fdisk /MBR. This rewrites the MBR
>> to the windows standard.
>
>Rewriting the MBR doesn't help because the problem is the corrupted
>partition table. But the above SUSE fix should work.

WOW awesome links thanks. that will save me a lot of headaches in
the future.

for what it's worth I did look in Suse, but did not come across this

I was PRETTY mad by then, so it could have been me, so I went back to
Googling but never ran across the PARTED issue.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:55:16 GMT, Franklin <franklin@peggy-o.local>
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:37:29 +0000, res wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:45:55 GMT, "Leo (Bing) Whiteway"
>> <leowhiteway@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>res wrote:
>>>> Hello everyone, I thought I would share my experiences
>>>> with Suse Linux 9.1.
>>>>
>>>Do you realize this is a SLACKWARE group?
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>> yes I tought Slackware users would probably use GRUB too and you are
>> known as hard core.
>>
>> are these assumptions wrong?
>
>GRUB=NO
>LILO=YES
>HARDCORE=MAYBE
>CROSSPOSTER=TWIT
>ASSUMPTION=WRONG
>CLUE=NONE

LOL I'm 63 years old and USED to have a lot of CLUES but years of
stress have left me with a slight case of alzheimer's (serious)

and of course I still do remember what they taught me in the army
about what you get when you ASS u ME

I've raised 4 boys and one daugther 2 of them are in the computer
bussiness.

don't take crossposting so Serious look at the big picture. Linux is
Linux, at least I was on topic.

thanks for the laugh

res <suse.rtoledo@spamgourmet.com> says...
>
>"Leo (Bing) Whiteway" <leowhiteway@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>res wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone, I thought I would share my experiences
>>> with Suse Linux 9.1.
>>>
>>Do you realize this is a SLACKWARE group?
>>
>><snip>
>
>yes I tought Slackware users would probably use GRUB too and you are
>known as hard core.
>
>are these assumptions wrong?

Your assumptions about newsgroups are wrong. Newsgroups were
designed to partition information. If it's about Slackware, post
it to alt.os.linux.slackware only. If it's about Suse, post it
to alt.os.linux.suse only. If it's about both Slackware and Suse,
post it to alt.os.linux only. Always try to find the one right
group where your post fits rather than crossposting to all of
the places where it might be of marginal interest.

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

> Your assumptions about newsgroups are wrong. Newsgroups were
> designed to partition information. If it's about Slackware, post
> it to alt.os.linux.slackware only. If it's about Suse, post it
> to alt.os.linux.suse only. If it's about both Slackware and Suse,
> post it to alt.os.linux only. Always try to find the one right
> group where your post fits rather than crossposting to all of
> the places where it might be of marginal interest.

If he shouldn't be posting where his topic is of marginal interest
then you shouldn't be posting at all, you fat pig.

Cross-posting, when done legitimately, is a perfectly acceptable
mode of communication. If an article is of equal relevance to
slackware and suse then clearly it should be posted to both
slackware and suse forums.

Where on earth does a hog like you get the notion that he has the
right to serve as a net cop?

cordially, as always,

rm

"Leo (Bing) Whiteway" <leowhiteway@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> res wrote:
> > Hello everyone, I thought I would share my experiences
> > with Suse Linux 9.1.
> >
> Do you realize this is a SLACKWARE group?

Like all other distros had or still has, so has Slackware the same
problem what OP had on SUSE. The relevant Parted bug was fixed in
1.6.12 but Slackware still has only Parted 1.6.11 and if one uses
Parted on a dual boot Slackware box then he may not be able to boot
Windows anymore.

"Leo (Bing) Whiteway" <leowhiteway@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> res wrote:
> > Hello everyone, I thought I would share my experiences
> > with Suse Linux 9.1.
> >
> Do you realize this is a SLACKWARE group?

Like all other distros had or still has, so has Slackware the same
problem what OP had on SUSE. The relevant Parted bug was fixed in
1.6.12 but Slackware still has only Parted 1.6.11 and if one uses
Parted on a dual boot Slackware box then he may not be able to boot
Windows anymore.

On 17 Aug 2004 09:33:21 -0700, szcs@abuse.co.uk (Sz. Csetey) wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Mark Burgo <mfburgo@atlanticbb.net> wrote in message
>> First, You should have searched google groups or the suse site. In version
>> 9.1 of suse ( actually it is a kernel 2.6 issue ) there was an issue with
>> repartitioning NTFS file systems.
>
>It's not NTFS related because sometimes it happens on FAT32 too and
>even if one used commercial partitioner before installation or a
>second disk. Parted corrupts the partition table on 2.6 kernels.
>
>SUSE fix:
>http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/0...booting91.html
>
>Parted fix:
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bu.../msg00046.html
>
>> The problem you ran into has happened to
>> many and the Suse Support Database has a write up on the problem. The
>> actual issue is ( if I remember correctly ) the 2.6 kernel and versio of
>> parted with suse 9.1 reports the wrong fs type and sets it incorrectly on
>> the disk. This causes the partion to be un bootable via grub or lilo...
>
>Parted changes the geometry in the partition table therefore Windows
>can't boot anymore in some rare cases. Not even if it's reinstalled.
>
>> Second, If you ever need to get the windows MBR back boot into Windows from
>> the CD exit the install process and run fdisk /MBR. This rewrites the MBR
>> to the windows standard.
>
>Rewriting the MBR doesn't help because the problem is the corrupted
>partition table. But the above SUSE fix should work.

Is it possible to downlaod this 1.6.12 ? and find wich of the 5 cd's
holds this program and re-burn a new cd with the new file in it like
they do with Windows slip streaming a SP2 release?


PS. after reading those 2 links posted by you helpful folks, I went
back and rebooted and checked my BIOS and it seems it's on AUTO and
when I change it to LBA on the clean new install/repartition I just
did the geometry is seen differently and the machine will not BOOT.

I tought that BIOSes changed years ago to the default of LBA,
and that is how they dealt with these huge drives, AAMOF one the
BIOS updates at Iwill for the MPX2 (this machine) is for updating it
to see larger drives. Anyways looks like I can start fresh one more
time with the BIOS in LBA and repartion/install it all or gamble and
re-burn a CD with the correct PARTED and see if IT gets along with the
AUTO setting and then if that fails start with a fresh repartitioning
in LBA.

any more positive advice is welcomed.

thanks to all that have given your valuable advice. since I set these
messages with the x-no archive OFF future searches on this subject
in GOOGLE will be easier to find I hope