Searching \ for '[EE] Linux then Windows, or Windows then Linux?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=linux+then+windows
Search entire site for: 'Linux then Windows, or Windows then Linux?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Linux then Windows, or Windows then Linux?'
2007\10\01@165059 by Dr Skip

picon face
VMserver is downloaded (but not installed yet). I expected to see something
about making your own VMs up front, but it was buried in the FAQ. The first
pages all say download and get a packaged VM to run with. But, it should work.

Now, are there any comments on whether to install Linux (presumably Ubuntu)
THEN win 2k pro, or win 2k pro first, then Linux? All the machines here already
have windows on them, so Linux on top would be easier, unless there is a
fundamental reason to do it the other way 'round.

I will say that most of the software I use is Windows (thousands of apps it
looks like) and portable-ized. But not all is... Everything is on NTFS
compressed and FAT filesystems... Last I looked, NTFS was a problem in Linux,
and Samba stopped a lot. I also found that I couldn't update apps for long
after the initial distro before it just became less pain to wipe it and start
over. That wouldn't be nice if it was the base OS!

So, windows will be with me for some time, and always running, but is there a
reliability or performance reason to wipe what I have and start with Linux?
BTW, the w2k and xp systems here are reasonably reliable (a month or more
between reboots). I really have a love for Linux (have used it professionally
in the past) but once you put all your apps on a stick or make them copy-able
without installation, windows isn't too bad (until you get to security and
vulnerabilities). I also used to have nightmares about keeping libraries and
such in sync and up to date, and some upgrade to run one app in Linux always
left me with a few broken because they didn't like the newer libs...

Thanks,
Skip

2007\10\01@180713 by Ariel Rocholl

flavicon
face
I'd say Windows then Linux, without a doubt. Reason is Linux is well
prepared and documented to install after Windows, but the opposite is not
true (yet).

2007/10/1, Dr Skip <spam_OUTdrskipTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com>:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\10\01@192602 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Ariel Rocholl wrote:

>> VMserver is downloaded (but not installed yet). I expected to see
>> something about making your own VMs up front, but it was buried in the
>> FAQ. The first pages all say download and get a packaged VM to run
>> with. But, it should work.
>>
>> Now, are there any comments on whether to install Linux (presumably
>> Ubuntu) THEN win 2k pro, or win 2k pro first, then Linux?

> I'd say Windows then Linux, without a doubt. Reason is Linux is well
> prepared and documented to install after Windows, but the opposite is not
> true (yet).

I've never had a problem installing Windows into a VM. I don't know what
kind of documentation you want... Create a virtual disk, start the VM, and
install Windows.

Gerhard

2007\10\01@194142 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/2/07, Gerhard Fiedler <.....listsKILLspamspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> Ariel Rocholl wrote:
>
> >> VMserver is downloaded (but not installed yet). I expected to see
> >> something about making your own VMs up front, but it was buried in the
> >> FAQ. The first pages all say download and get a packaged VM to run
> >> with. But, it should work.
> >>
> >> Now, are there any comments on whether to install Linux (presumably
> >> Ubuntu) THEN win 2k pro, or win 2k pro first, then Linux?
>
> > I'd say Windows then Linux, without a doubt. Reason is Linux is well
> > prepared and documented to install after Windows, but the opposite is not
> > true (yet).

This is recommended for dual-boot. For VMWare, this does not apply.

> I've never had a problem installing Windows into a VM. I don't know what
> kind of documentation you want... Create a virtual disk, start the VM, and
> install Windows.

So I guess if the OP want to go the VMware way (I still prefer dual boot
or multi-boot), the question is to use Linux as the host OS or use
Windows as the host OS.

To me if the OP use Windows as a host OS, he will mostly stick to Windows
as it works for him. Linux will be sidelined. Just my observation. I've seen
people install Linux VM inside a Windows machine and it will be just a
toy for them since they still find it easier to run the native Windows
session.

So for convenience, he can install Linux as a VM on top of Windows,
risking of never really use Linux.

On the other hand, if he install Linux and run Windows as a VM,
he might get used to Linux and only run Windows for those
applications he needs under Windows. I believe some experienced
Linux users in PIClist go this route.

Xiaofan

2007\10\01@195654 by Dr Skip

picon face
How is NTFS under the latest Linux? Can it read and write compressed NTFS
disks? That's an important consideration too. I'm sure there are some
workarounds, but my last try about a year ago was the latest SuSe in VMplayer.
NTFS uncompressed could be read (I think, but not on all systems), compressed
was no, and using Samba was hit or miss - it would go away after a while or
just pretend to go away... I also tried Knoppix as an ISO running in a premade
vm that you could use any iso CD/dvd in (that was handy...).


2007\10\02@084038 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Why would you make a compressed NTFS volume when a 1 TB drive costs $350
or less?
--
Martin K

Dr Skip wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\02@095749 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/2/07, Dr Skip <drskipspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> How is NTFS under the latest Linux? Can it read and write compressed NTFS
> disks? That's an important consideration too. I'm sure there are some
> workarounds, but my last try about a year ago was the latest SuSe in VMplayer.
> NTFS uncompressed could be read (I think, but not on all systems), compressed
> was no, and using Samba was hit or miss - it would go away after a while or
> just pretend to go away... I also tried Knoppix as an ISO running in a premade
> vm that you could use any iso CD/dvd in (that was handy...).
>

If that is the case, stick with Windows XP with your main computer.
Buy another computer and run Linux on it. Linux can access Windows
shared folder without major problems, at least from Ubuntu 7.04.

Linux has poor support with NTFS write (only experimental).
And I believe that you are right that it will not support compressed
NTFS. Why you want to use compressed NTFS is
beyond me though.

Xiaofan

2007\10\02@100934 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 10/2/07, Martin Klingensmith <.....martinKILLspamspam.....nnytech.net> wrote:
> Why would you make a compressed NTFS volume when a 1 TB drive costs $350
> or less?

Good point.


On my work machine, I installed windows, then linux, with a FAT32
partition so I could move data between them nicely.  Windows only
reads FAT or NTFS well, and debian dosen't like to write to NTFS.

On my home machine, I went linux then windows, but I skipped the second step.
:)

2007\10\02@140004 by Dr Skip

picon face
I have yet to find a 1 TB drive for my laptops....

Several machines here are laptops - for their size, built in screen, built in
battery backup, etc. External drives are way too slow, as well. All other boxes
have all slots filled. Yes, I could start ripping out 300 and 400 GB drives in
the bigger boxes, which are compressed, and replacing with uncompressed 1TB
drives. I would be paying $350 for an incremental 300 GB or so...

What is needed is a way to chain drives in a box, logically and physically, so
one could put a dozen in at full ATA or SATA speeds. A single C drive from a
dozen physical drives at full speed. *nix style mounting is nice, but there's
still the physical connection limit in the box.

BTW, installed VMserver - the full install, and brought up a vm of SuSe I had
used with player. It used to run so well you wouldn't know you had 2 systems
going. This time it complained about vmtools and took 40 minutes to boot the
vm... It's going to take more time it seems than in the past to get it going.


Martin Klingensmith wrote:
> Why would you make a compressed NTFS volume when a 1 TB drive costs $350
> or less?
> --
> Martin K
>
> Dr Skip wrote:
>

2007\10\02@141136 by peter green

flavicon
face
Dr Skip wrote:
> I have yet to find a 1 TB drive for my laptops....
>
> Several machines here are laptops - for their size, built in screen, built in
> battery backup, etc. External drives are way too slow, as well. All other boxes
> have all slots filled. Yes, I could start ripping out 300 and 400 GB drives in
> the bigger boxes, which are compressed, and replacing with uncompressed 1TB
> drives. I would be paying $350 for an incremental 300 GB or so...
>
> What is needed is a way to chain drives in a box, logically and physically, so
> one could put a dozen in at full ATA or SATA speeds. A single C drive from a
> dozen physical drives at full speed. *nix style mounting is nice, but there's
> still the physical connection limit in the box.
>  

You can get four sata ports from one PCI slot easilly and cheaply, you
still have to find a way to get the cables out of the box but that isn't
too hard. Many of theese controller cards can do some form of raid so
you can have four drives appear as one pretty eailly.

2007\10\02@142607 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Few comments:
USB2 is as fast as the drive that you put in the enclosure. I'm not
trying to sell anything on you, just saying..
If you want to chain a bunch of drives into one large drive use a RAID
interface and do "JBOD" which spans volumes and creates one large one.

How much space do you save having a compressed volume? My guess is not
much. Most large data is compressed already except perhaps databases.

--
Martin K

Dr Skip wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\02@145912 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Linux has poor support with NTFS write (only experimental).
> And I believe that you are right that it will not support compressed
> NTFS. Why you want to use compressed NTFS is
> beyond me though.

There are commercial products for Linux NTFS.

http://www.ntfs-linux.com/

Not that I need/want one... plenty of MUCH better filesystem types out
there...

Nate

2007\10\03@025239 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 10/3/07, Nate Duehr <EraseMEnatespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnatetech.com> wrote:
>
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> > Linux has poor support with NTFS write (only experimental).
> > And I believe that you are right that it will not support compressed
> > NTFS. Why you want to use compressed NTFS is
> > beyond me though.
>
> There are commercial products for Linux NTFS.
>
> http://www.ntfs-linux.com/
>
> Not that I need/want one... plenty of MUCH better filesystem types out
> there...
>
> Nate


ntfs-3g for linux seems to work quite well for me now.
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

John La Rooy

2007\10\03@052531 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Dr Skip wrote:
> I have yet to find a 1 TB drive for my laptops....
>
> Several machines here are laptops - for their size, built in screen, built in
> battery backup, etc. External drives are way too slow, as well. All other boxes
> have all slots filled. Yes, I could start ripping out 300 and 400 GB drives in
> the bigger boxes, which are compressed, and replacing with uncompressed 1TB
> drives. I would be paying $350 for an incremental 300 GB or so...
>
> What is needed is a way to chain drives in a box, logically and physically, so
> one could put a dozen in at full ATA or SATA speeds. A single C drive from a
> dozen physical drives at full speed. *nix style mounting is nice, but there's
> still the physical connection limit in the box.
>  
SATA controller cards aren't that expensive and you can get 16 port ones
(on PCI-E).
linux with LVM installed should get you your expandability.
None of the file systems out there seem to implement "stuff another disk
in and your RAID grows" I'm half tempted to write my own file system
under FUSE to play with these kind of things.
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\03@075209 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jake Anderson wrote:

> None of the file systems out there seem to implement "stuff another disk
> in and your RAID grows" I'm half tempted to write my own file system
> under FUSE to play with these kind of things.

Not a file system exactly, but I think with Windows dynamic disks you can
just stuff another disk in and your spanned volume grows. Probably possible
with other JBOD setups, too.

Gerhard

2007\10\03@083244 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Windows home server is supposed to do the dynamic disks automatically.
Need mroe space?  Pop a USB drive on it and the volume grows with
little user intervention.  Of course, it's not available yet.

-Adam

On 10/2/07, Martin Klingensmith <martinspamspam_OUTnnytech.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\10\03@103221 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Jake Anderson wrote:
>
>  
>> None of the file systems out there seem to implement "stuff another disk
>> in and your RAID grows" I'm half tempted to write my own file system
>> under FUSE to play with these kind of things.
>>    
>
> Not a file system exactly, but I think with Windows dynamic disks you can
> just stuff another disk in and your spanned volume grows. Probably possible
> with other JBOD setups, too.
>
> Gerhard
>
>  
Yeah you can do it with LVM in linux as a "just a bunch of disks" but
you don't grow your redundancy, You wind up mixing LVM and RAID and
nothing works how you want it to.
I'd like to be able to stick another drive in and the file system will
then do its best to make things work how I want.
I'd like the ability to specify RAID levels on a per directory or per
file basis, and have the file system shuffle things around to make it
how i said while everything is still online. Then if i want to pull a
disk from an array it will warn me if doing so will mean it cant
maintain raid levels and assorted things like that.

So you set your file system up, you say / must handle one disk out,
/home must handle 2, /var/lib/mythtv (a tv/video system) must handle 0
(implying raid 0)

As an optional extra.
When the disks are idle then the file system should start sorting its
blocks onto the various disks such that you have maximum redundancy (and
minimum seek time). IE theres no point having a sector written with all
0's, put another copy of /home on it while your waiting.


Its an expensive system in terms of CPU and RAM but those are really
cheap these days and if it means you can minimize your disk IO times so
much the better.

2007\10\03@195707 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 10/3/07, Jake Anderson <@spam@jakeKILLspamspamvapourforge.com> wrote:
>
> Dr Skip wrote:
> > I have yet to find a 1 TB drive for my laptops....
> >
> > Several machines here are laptops - for their size, built in screen,
> built in
> > battery backup, etc. External drives are way too slow, as well. All
> other boxes
> > have all slots filled. Yes, I could start ripping out 300 and 400 GB
> drives in
> > the bigger boxes, which are compressed, and replacing with uncompressed
> 1TB
> > drives. I would be paying $350 for an incremental 300 GB or so...


Most of the files I would have on a 1TB drive would be compressed already
*.avi, *.jpg, *.mp3 etc..

{Quote hidden}

SATA2 was supposed to support 15 drives per port, but I think we have to
wait for the 6Gbit/s
to get that now.

SATA controller cards aren't that expensive and you can get 16 port ones
> (on PCI-E).
> linux with LVM installed should get you your expandability.
> None of the file systems out there seem to implement "stuff another disk
> in and your RAID grows" I'm half tempted to write my own file system
> under FUSE to play with these kind of things.


zfs does that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
the end to end checksumming is cool too.

John La Rooy

2007\10\03@212904 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face

>> (on PCI-E).
>> linux with LVM installed should get you your expandability.
>> None of the file systems out there seem to implement "stuff another disk
>> in and your RAID grows" I'm half tempted to write my own file system
>> under FUSE to play with these kind of things.
>>    
>
>
> zfs does that
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
> the end to end checksumming is cool too.
>
> John La Rooy
>  
I thought it did too but you cant add another disk to a raid-5 pool and
have it move everything around for you to just grow the space. (at least
last time i checked) you have to add another 3 drives for it to make the
raid-5 system.

Well whaddya know mdadm now lets you grow a raid-5 array and it looks
like you can do it online. Finally! And it looks like if you use XFS you
can grow the file system while its online too. So the only thing that
happens from an end user perspective is more space turns up.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...