<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">Thanks to everyone for your replies, very useful, but due to my n00b status, I have little idea of how to tell GRUB to </pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">chainload the first drive, particularly when it is seeing / as on /dev/sda and an fdisk -l shows no other drives (fdisk /dev/sdb /-l </pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">also gave no results).</pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br></pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">So...to simplify - does anyone know what steps to take to 'chainload' as has been suggested - i.e. keep grub on the linux disk,</pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">and but set it up to revert to the other drive when he wants XP - I've always used grub on single disk installations, but at the </pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">moment linux doesn't know the other disk exists...is this a probing thing somehow to find out the right details for GRUB and /etc/fstab? </pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">I'm seriously considering telling him to save an image of his whole XP disk onto an external drive, repartitioning the RAID to a </pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">normal unRAIDed partition and copying it back to normal - problem is I bet XP would fall over due to driver/hardware changes </pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">...grrr</pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br></pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">Thanks for your patience and thoughts,</pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">Chris</pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">p.s. - feel free to tell me if I reach the end of what might be considered normal allowance for questions! ;)</pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br></pre><pre style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br></pre><br>From: nottingham-request@mailman.lug.org.uk<br>Subject: Nottingham Digest, Vol 395, Issue 4<br>To: nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk<br>Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:00:02 +0000<br><br><pre>Send Nottingham mailing list submissions to<br> nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk<br> <br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham" target="_blank">https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> nottingham-request@mailman.lug.org.uk<br> <br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> nottingham-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk<br> <br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Nottingham digest..."<br></pre><br><br>--Forwarded Message Attachment--<br>From: jmthelostpacket@googlemail.com<br>To: nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk<br>Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 13:51:05 +0100<br>Subject: Re: [Nottingham] Dual boot GRUB woes on RAID<br><br><pre>I would concur with the replies given, by adding my own experience:<br>that being that bootloaders generally do not like softRAID of any<br>description. As I was experimenting with softRAID several years ago<br>(on a Promise Ultra ATA 100TX/2 RAID card), I discovered that I had to<br>create a dead zone partition for the bootloader (ie space reserved at<br>the top of the partition table on each drive in the array for a<br>partition on one drive just for the bootloader) otherwise I could only<br>use the array for data.<br> <br>On 5/23/11, Martin <martin@ml1.co.uk> wrote:<br>> On 23 May 2011 12:18, Jason Irwin <jasonirwin73@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> [---]<br>>>> His original XP drive has two partitions, that are in a RAID array, (not<br>>> sure whether 1 or 0).<br>>>> Anyway, he has bought an extra drive, managed to install Natty on it, at<br>>> the moment has GRUB<br>>>> on that second drive's MBR, so changes the boot order in the BIOS to<br>>> switch between OS's.<br>>><br>>> I’m an idiot, so my advice may be crap.<br>><br>> Only the blind consider themselves infallible! ;-)<br>><br>>> He is probably using fake-raid (some Intel trickery on the HDD controller,<br>>> I<br>>> have it and it is pretty common on home/low-end devices). From when I did<br>>> my research for my RAID0 set-up, I found out that GRUB *does not* like<br>>> this.<br>><br>> A good guess I'll agree as most likely...<br>><br>><br>> Rather than using the BIOS boot sequence to select between booting a<br>> particular drive, an alternative could be to always boot from grub on<br>> his second drive. Add into the grub menu a selection to "chain" to the<br>> MBR on the Windows drive to then go through the Windows bootloader<br>> there when wanted.<br>><br>> A quick web search should give the grub details for chaining another<br>> bootloader/MBR. (The MBR must be accessible regardless of the<br>> fake-RAID.)<br>><br>><br>> And welcome to the list. Such questions are a good part of what the<br>> list and group are around for!<br>><br>> Good luck,<br>> Martin<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Nottingham mailing list<br>> Nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk<br>> <a href="https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham" target="_blank">https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham</a><br>><br> <br> <br>-- <br>Vi veri veniversum vivus vici<br> <br>The working of all great organisation there is underground - it is<br>easy enough to meet plot by counterplot, to suborn, to deceive, to<br>undermine. - E. P. Oppenheim<br> <br><a href="http://thelostpacket.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://thelostpacket.wordpress.com</a><br> <br> <br></pre><br><br>--Forwarded Message Attachment--<br>From: martin@ml1.co.uk<br>To: nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk<br>Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 23:14:28 +0100<br>Subject: [Nottingham] WebP - Anyone heard of it or using it? Or seen it even?<br><br><pre>Folks,<br> <br>So... We've had gif superseded by png... Looks like there's a move to<br>usurp both png and jpg with a new Google-ism of WebP:<br> <br> <br><a href="http://code.google.com/speed/webp/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/speed/webp/</a><br> <br><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/23/webp_format_in_chrome_gmail_picasa/" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/23/webp_format_in_chrome_gmail_picasa/</a><br> <br><a href="http://code.google.com/p/webp/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/webp/</a><br> <br> <br>Patented to be 'open' and supposedly 40% better compression than jpg<br>for similar visual quality...<br> <br>Too new to be seen anywhere yet? Good, bad, not needed, and/or is<br>Google big enough to push it through?<br> <br>Interestingly, on <a href="http://code.google.com/speed/webp/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/speed/webp/</a> , the versions<br>for the various OSes are listed in the order Linux, Windows, Mac OS<br>X...<br> <br> <br>Ain't got it in my old version of GIMP!... One for the next distro update?<br> <br> <br>(BTW: GIMP next talk ;-) )<br> <br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br> <br> <br></pre> </body>
</html>