eCS / OS/2 JFS-compatibility with Linux

[Wolfi]

Question for those, who have already figured out, how to use JFS
partitions from both, OS/2 and Linux.

Formatting compatible partitions as JFS from eCS / OS/2 apparently is
not compatible with the JFS, current distributions like Ubuntu 9.04
Desktop or SuSE 11.1 are able to deal with.

After having tried that, Linux then only produces some kind of a binary
icon for those JFS drives formatted from within OS/2 / eCS and fails to
actually read from or install to such a JFS partition, unless it is
formatted again by Linux itself.

I didn't notice any possibility for additional FS formatting options in
the graphical installer of Ubuntu Desktop nor eCS.

So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

[Trevor Hemsley]

On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096 (/BS:4096) which
is the default if not specified anyway.

Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing your Linux
system to not see the drive? What happens if you manually mount it using

mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs

where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory name that
points to an empty directory.

[Dave Yeo]

Post by Trevor Hemsley
On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096 (/BS:4096) which
is the default if not specified anyway.
Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing your Linux
system to not see the drive? What happens if you manually mount it using
mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs
where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory name that
points to an empty directory.

On Ubuntu I had to do the mount command as sudo, then chmod the
filesystem so I owned it. If you do a ls -la on the freshly mounted
volume you see that all permissions are blank
Dave

[MMI]

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Trevor Hemsley
On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096
(/BS:4096) which
is the default if not specified anyway.
Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing your Linux
system to not see the drive? What happens if you manually mount it using
mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs
where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory name that
points to an empty directory.

On Ubuntu I had to do the mount command as sudo, then chmod the
filesystem so I owned it. If you do a ls -la on the freshly mounted
volume you see that all permissions are blank
Dave

I must admit that this detail faded in my memory but yes, something like
that was needed. Or maybe I used the OS/2 JFS volume as root.

[Wolfi]

Post by Trevor Hemsley
On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096 (/BS:4096) which
is the default if not specified anyway.

This is in OS/2, right?
And what is the default being used by Linux, the same or something
different?

Post by Trevor Hemsley
Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing your Linux
system to not see the drive?

At this point I still don't have much of a clue and depend pretty much
on detailed step by step instructions, since I'm still struggling
getting started and more familiar with Linux, which is kind of
difficult, considering that Ubuntu apparently is dragging a long a
severe bug since quite a while now, preventing grub-install to do what
it is supposed to do.
What would the partition type need to be, Linux' 82h or OS/2's default?

I wanted JFS as file system for "/" and for "/home" and selected so in
the ubiquity installer and also the GRUB bootloader (stage 1 I think is
that) to be put in the PBS of "/home" and that just doesn't work (for
"/" neither, BTW), grub-install repeatedly simply fails.
So far I don't know my way around that one yet.

At first, when I had the intended Linux partitions formatted in OS/2,
the installer would start and guide me through its menus, so everything
seemed to be fine.
But after some time I ended up with the Live-System rather with the
expected reboot after the "installation" had supposedly finished.
Using Nautilus I then looked into \target, where I expected the
installed files to show up, but there was nothing at all.
/var/log/syslog also showed, that copying files to "/" and "/home" had
failed.

So, in my next try I let Linux also re-format the designated partitions,
when I was assigning the mount points in the installer.
This time, copying the files worked, but I'm still stuck with the
grub-install bug and haven't tried yet, if I now actually could read
those 2 partitions from OS/2.

I also tried both, booting from the Jaunty Desktop CD and select
Installation, but also boot up the Live system and start the
installation from the Desktop icon. Both ways fail the same way.

Post by Trevor Hemsley
What happens if you manually mount it using
mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs
where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory name that
points to an empty directory.

At which point and how would I need to do that during the installation?

I just tried that for the 2 OS/2 JFS partitions on this HDD, which still
show up in Nautilus with that binary (00/01) icon.

I did: sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs1
sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs1

on order to determine the correct partitions, I used:
sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda6 /mnt/jfs1
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda7 /mnt/jfs2
Ahaaa! I still don't see anything in Nautilus, when I look into
/mnt/jfs1 or/jfs2 - they are both still empty, but this could be due to
user right stuff, right?
At the moment I get errors, when I try to start another Nautilus via:
sudo nautilus
nautilus 13417: Eel-Warning **: GConf-Error: .......
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to open a connection ....
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to connect to the .....

but: sudo ls /mnt/jfs1 | /jfs2
actually lists the Warp partition stuff :-) Nice!

[Dave Yeo]

Hi Wolfi, I'm far from expert and right now my Ubuntu install is fscked
up :)

Post by Wolfi

Post by Trevor Hemsley
On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096 (/BS:4096) which
is the default if not specified anyway.

This is in OS/2, right?
And what is the default being used by Linux, the same or something
different?

Both Linux and OS/2 have the same defaults. IIRC there is also a
compatibility mode setting on Linux

Post by Wolfi

Post by Trevor Hemsley
Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing your Linux
system to not see the drive?

At this point I still don't have much of a clue and depend pretty much
on detailed step by step instructions, since I'm still struggling
getting started and more familiar with Linux, which is kind of
difficult, considering that Ubuntu apparently is dragging a long a
severe bug since quite a while now, preventing grub-install to do what
it is supposed to do.
What would the partition type need to be, Linux' 82h or OS/2's default?

I'd advice installing Linux on type 83 and just mounting your OS/2
partitions. Our type 35 seems to be too new for Linux

Post by Wolfi
I wanted JFS as file system for "/" and for "/home" and selected so in
the ubiquity installer and also the GRUB bootloader (stage 1 I think is
that) to be put in the PBS of "/home" and that just doesn't work (for
"/" neither, BTW), grub-install repeatedly simply fails.
So far I don't know my way around that one yet.

Try creating a /boot where GRUB should put its bootloader. (and there is
actually an option for this in the newer Ubuntus). (You should also be
able to add /boot to BootManager). If you want to share between OS/2
and Linux you should create all the partitions in OS/2 or with DFSEE.
You can always use LINUX fdisk to change the partition type to make
Linux happy.

Post by Wolfi
At first, when I had the intended Linux partitions formatted in OS/2,
the installer would start and guide me through its menus, so everything
seemed to be fine.
But after some time I ended up with the Live-System rather with the
expected reboot after the "installation" had supposedly finished.
Using Nautilus I then looked into \target, where I expected the
installed files to show up, but there was nothing at all.
/var/log/syslog also showed, that copying files to "/" and "/home" had
failed.

This may be an issue with the partition type. OS/2 uses 35 and Linux
uses 82. Once again I'd suggest not sharing / , just mounting the OS/2
partitions.

Post by Wolfi
So, in my next try I let Linux also re-format the designated partitions,
when I was assigning the mount points in the installer.
This time, copying the files worked, but I'm still stuck with the
grub-install bug and haven't tried yet, if I now actually could read
those 2 partitions from OS/2.

OS/2 won't read them due to the partition ID

Post by Wolfi
I also tried both, booting from the Jaunty Desktop CD and select
Installation, but also boot up the Live system and start the
installation from the Desktop icon. Both ways fail the same way.

Post by Trevor Hemsley
What happens if you manually mount it using
mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs
where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory name that
points to an empty directory.

At which point and how would I need to do that during the installation?
I just tried that for the 2 OS/2 JFS partitions on this HDD, which still
show up in Nautilus with that binary (00/01) icon.
I did: sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs1
sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs1
sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda6 /mnt/jfs1
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda7 /mnt/jfs2
Ahaaa! I still don't see anything in Nautilus, when I look into
/mnt/jfs1 or/jfs2 - they are both still empty, but this could be due to
user right stuff, right?

This would be the user right stuff. Only root has access at this point.

Post by Wolfi
sudo nautilus
nautilus 13417: Eel-Warning **: GConf-Error: .......
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to open a connection ....
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to connect to the .....

I think that sudo is getting its settings from /root which is roots home
directory. And especially in Ubuntu /root doesn't have sane defaults
installed.

Post by Wolfi
but: sudo ls /mnt/jfs1 | /jfs2
actually lists the Warp partition stuff :-) Nice!

Yes at this point root has access but not the user wolfi. IIRC you can
use chmod to change the permissions of /mnt/jfs1 but I really can't
remember how I did it. Try chmod --help.

I'd suggest waiting for someone more knowledgeable then me to add to
what I wrote above, but I think (hope) I generally have it right.

Dave

[Wolfi]

Post by Dave Yeo
Hi Wolfi, I'm far from expert and right now my Ubuntu install is fscked
up :)

Post by Wolfi

Post by Trevor Hemsley
On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096
(/BS:4096) which is the default if not specified anyway.

This is in OS/2, right?
And what is the default being used by Linux, the same or something
different?

Both Linux and OS/2 have the same defaults.

That's excellent to hear :-)

Post by Dave Yeo
IIRC there is also a compatibility mode setting on Linux

I couldn't find anything to apply optional parameters in ubiquity. Those
might then only be available from within the "Alternate"-CD installer.

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi

Post by Trevor Hemsley
Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing
your Linux system to not see the drive?

At this point I still don't have much of a clue and depend pretty much
on detailed step by step instructions, since I'm still struggling
getting started and more familiar with Linux, which is kind of
difficult, considering that Ubuntu apparently is dragging a long a
severe bug since quite a while now, preventing grub-install to do what
it is supposed to do.
What would the partition type need to be, Linux' 82h or OS/2's default?

I'd advice installing Linux on type 83 and just mounting your OS/2
partitions. Our type 35 seems to be too new for Linux

Do you mean by that, that the auto-mount Ubuntu is trying to do, but
kind of failing with it - I get the drive icons, but cannot read
anything and also still have the MB2-menu "mount" option in Nautilus,
but it's not working. but again, it also still could be just a rights
problem, which I cannot test anymore right now w/o having to reboot
first, due to "sudo nautilus" not working.

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
I wanted JFS as file system for "/" and for "/home" and selected so in
the ubiquity installer and also the GRUB bootloader (stage 1 I think is
that) to be put in the PBS of "/home" and that just doesn't work (for
"/" neither, BTW), grub-install repeatedly simply fails.
So far I don't know my way around that one yet.

Try creating a /boot where GRUB should put its bootloader. (and there is
actually an option for this in the newer Ubuntus). (You should also be

It's almost at the very end of the configuration options, I was using
that, but that century old *&@#$%? bug(s) in Ubuntu's grub-install
prevents it from going through with it.

Based on the little I think to know so far about the Linux boot process
using GRUB, I wanted the first-stage bootloader to be in the /home PBS,
since that is supposed to overcome updates/distribution changes and
that's where the OS/2 BM would point to.

This stage-1 GRUB boot code would then point to /boot, which, if I'm not
mistaken, would also house GRUB's stage-2 stuff and would have ended up
on the "/" partition, together with everything else.
AFAIR, there then should be /grub inside /boot, right?
Here with my broken installation try, I don't have /boot/grub at all,
only the kernel files in /boot.

So far, I have not the faintest idea, if this plan is a smart or a dumb
one :-[

Are you indicating, that it would be better, to have /boot on a separate
partition?

This is especially relevant, since I would like to be able to have, at
least at times, one or more additional/other Linux distris/versions for
testing/trying out around and was wondering already, how GRUB then would
be able to manage and deal with different kernel versions and
accompanying files and in whose /boot they actually would end up in, if
no dedicated /boot partition is being used.

And what kind of rule-of-thumb size (per intended distri/version(?))
should the /boot partition then be?

Post by Dave Yeo
able to add /boot to BootManager). If you want to share between OS/2
and Linux you should create all the partitions in OS/2 or with DFSEE.
You can always use LINUX fdisk to change the partition type to make
Linux happy.

But that would only be valid for the Ubuntu installation period, if that
is what's currently preventing ubiquity to work, because otherwise I
couldn't access the Linux partitions from OS/2 due to the wrong
partition-ID, right?

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
At first, when I had the intended Linux partitions formatted in OS/2,
the installer would start and guide me through its menus, so everything
seemed to be fine.
But after some time I ended up with the Live-System rather with the
expected reboot after the "installation" had supposedly finished.
Using Nautilus I then looked into \target, where I expected the
installed files to show up, but there was nothing at all.
/var/log/syslog also showed, that copying files to "/" and "/home" had
failed.

This may be an issue with the partition type. OS/2 uses 35 and Linux
uses 82. Once again I'd suggest not sharing / , just mounting the OS/2
partitions.

Right, wasn't sure anymore which ID is /swap and which one the rest.

Then I give it a try on my next run, with partitions formatted by OS/2,
but the partition ID then changed to 82, to see, if that then makes the
ubiquity installer happy.

OK, but here I don't quite understand, where/what is the difference
between sharing and mounting a partition?

What I'd like to be ending up with is the option to access/exchange
files between both worlds, if needed on occasion and ideally use common
profiles for stuff like Mozillas, if that actually would be possible.

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
So, in my next try I let Linux also re-format the designated partitions,
when I was assigning the mount points in the installer.
This time, copying the files worked, but I'm still stuck with the
grub-install bug and haven't tried yet, if I now actually could read
those 2 partitions from OS/2.

OS/2 won't read them due to the partition ID

Right! forgot about that one for a moment. But if I'm not mistaken, I
picked up somewhere that (a running) Linux actually doesn't care about
the partition ID, so changing it back later to 35 should make OS/2 happy
then after all, right?

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
I also tried both, booting from the Jaunty Desktop CD and select
Installation, but also boot up the Live system and start the
installation from the Desktop icon. Both ways fail the same way.

Post by Trevor Hemsley
What happens if you manually mount it using
mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs
where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory
name that points to an empty directory.

At which point and how would I need to do that during the installation?
I just tried that for the 2 OS/2 JFS partitions on this HDD, which still
show up in Nautilus with that binary (00/01) icon.
I did: sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs1
sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs2
sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda6 /mnt/jfs1
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda7 /mnt/jfs2
Ahaaa! I still don't see anything in Nautilus, when I look into
/mnt/jfs1 or/jfs2 - they are both still empty, but this could be due to
user right stuff, right?

This would be the user right stuff. Only root has access at this point.

Post by Wolfi
sudo nautilus
nautilus 13417: Eel-Warning **: GConf-Error: .......
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to open a connection ....
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to connect to the .....

I think that sudo is getting its settings from /root which is roots home
directory. And especially in Ubuntu /root doesn't have sane defaults
installed.

Great :-( They are making it really 'easy' for newbies.
If you can't get it installed in the first place, then you don't need to
worry about it at all ;-)

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
but: sudo ls /mnt/jfs1 | /jfs2
actually lists the Warp partition stuff :-) Nice!

Yes at this point root has access but not the user wolfi. IIRC you can

At this point right now I am actually still the "Live session user" from
my various installation trials, but apparently it also only has limited
rights.

Post by Dave Yeo
use chmod to change the permissions of /mnt/jfs1 but I really can't
remember how I did it. Try chmod --help.

I actually had a brief look at it, but didn't quite know how to deal
with my "Live session user".
Is that the actual real name being used right now?
How does one query the currently logged-in user?

Post by Dave Yeo
I'd suggest waiting for someone more knowledgeable then me to add to
what I wrote above, but I think (hope) I generally have it right.

I really appreciate that, Dave.
With Linux being so different in so many ways from what I'm familiar
with, I take any help and pointer I can get, most importantly when it
comes to shell syntax.

[Dave Yeo]

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo
Hi Wolfi, I'm far from expert and right now my Ubuntu install is fscked
up :)

Post by Wolfi

Post by Trevor Hemsley
On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:18:28 UTC in comp.os.os2.ecomstation, Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

The file system has to be formatted using a blocksize of 4096
(/BS:4096) which is the default if not specified anyway.

This is in OS/2, right?
And what is the default being used by Linux, the same or something
different?

Both Linux and OS/2 have the same defaults.

That's excellent to hear :-)

Post by Dave Yeo
IIRC there is also a compatibility mode setting on Linux

I couldn't find anything to apply optional parameters in ubiquity. Those
might then only be available from within the "Alternate"-CD installer.

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi

Post by Trevor Hemsley
Are you sure that it's not just the partition type that is causing
your Linux system to not see the drive?

At this point I still don't have much of a clue and depend pretty much
on detailed step by step instructions, since I'm still struggling
getting started and more familiar with Linux, which is kind of
difficult, considering that Ubuntu apparently is dragging a long a
severe bug since quite a while now, preventing grub-install to do what
it is supposed to do.
What would the partition type need to be, Linux' 82h or OS/2's default?

I'd advice installing Linux on type 83 and just mounting your OS/2
partitions. Our type 35 seems to be too new for Linux

Do you mean by that, that the auto-mount Ubuntu is trying to do, but
kind of failing with it - I get the drive icons, but cannot read
anything and also still have the MB2-menu "mount" option in Nautilus,
but it's not working. but again, it also still could be just a rights
problem, which I cannot test anymore right now w/o having to reboot
first, due to "sudo nautilus" not working.

I think that this is a rights problem. What I do sometimes is sudo mc
then use mc like a root terminal. mc is midnight commander, a very
useful norton commander clone which you have to install separately with
the package manager

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
I wanted JFS as file system for "/" and for "/home" and selected so in
the ubiquity installer and also the GRUB bootloader (stage 1 I think is
that) to be put in the PBS of "/home" and that just doesn't work (for
"/" neither, BTW), grub-install repeatedly simply fails.
So far I don't know my way around that one yet.

I really don't think there is anyway to put GRUB in /home.

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo
Try creating a /boot where GRUB should put its bootloader. (and there is
actually an option for this in the newer Ubuntus). (You should also be

It's almost at the very end of the configuration options, I was using
prevents it from going through with it.
Based on the little I think to know so far about the Linux boot process
using GRUB, I wanted the first-stage bootloader to be in the /home PBS,
since that is supposed to overcome updates/distribution changes and
that's where the OS/2 BM would point to.
This stage-1 GRUB boot code would then point to /boot, which, if I'm not
mistaken, would also house GRUB's stage-2 stuff and would have ended up
on the "/" partition, together with everything else.
AFAIR, there then should be /grub inside /boot, right?
Here with my broken installation try, I don't have /boot/grub at all,
only the kernel files in /boot.
So far, I have not the faintest idea, if this plan is a smart or a dumb
one :-[
Are you indicating, that it would be better, to have /boot on a separate
partition?

Yes this is the idea, a separate small partition for /boot, perhaps as
small as 10 MBs, then point BootManager at /boot. This is also a way to
overcome problems when the BIOS can't boot the whole disk, put a /boot
in near the beginning.
IIRC when the partitioner thing is running there is an advanced button
which will allow you to install GRUB in /boot's embr.

Post by Wolfi
This is especially relevant, since I would like to be able to have, at
least at times, one or more additional/other Linux distris/versions for
testing/trying out around and was wondering already, how GRUB then would
be able to manage and deal with different kernel versions and
accompanying files and in whose /boot they actually would end up in, if
no dedicated /boot partition is being used.

In theory this will work but will probably take some manual editing. By
default every time you upgrade the kernel the GRUB menu should give you
a choice between the new one and the old one.

Post by Wolfi
And what kind of rule-of-thumb size (per intended distri/version(?))
should the /boot partition then be?

Pretty small as it mostly just has a couple of kernels in it. 10 - 20
MBs should be good.

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo
able to add /boot to BootManager). If you want to share between OS/2
and Linux you should create all the partitions in OS/2 or with DFSEE.
You can always use LINUX fdisk to change the partition type to make
Linux happy.

But that would only be valid for the Ubuntu installation period, if that
is what's currently preventing ubiquity to work, because otherwise I
couldn't access the Linux partitions from OS/2 due to the wrong
partition-ID, right?

Yes that sounds right, I'd guess you can just change /home and perhaps /
to type 35. I don't know if there is much point in changing / and I
never did get around to this step.

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
At first, when I had the intended Linux partitions formatted in OS/2,
the installer would start and guide me through its menus, so everything
seemed to be fine.
But after some time I ended up with the Live-System rather with the
expected reboot after the "installation" had supposedly finished.
Using Nautilus I then looked into \target, where I expected the
installed files to show up, but there was nothing at all.
/var/log/syslog also showed, that copying files to "/" and "/home" had
failed.

This may be an issue with the partition type. OS/2 uses 35 and Linux
uses 82. Once again I'd suggest not sharing / , just mounting the OS/2
partitions.

Right, wasn't sure anymore which ID is /swap and which one the rest.

I also forget that, use fdisk, it has a menu listing for show partition
types.

Post by Wolfi
Then I give it a try on my next run, with partitions formatted by OS/2,
but the partition ID then changed to 82, to see, if that then makes the
ubiquity installer happy.
OK, but here I don't quite understand, where/what is the difference
between sharing and mounting a partition?

When you mount a partition its root is just another subdirectory,
usually in /mnt or /media

Post by Wolfi
What I'd like to be ending up with is the option to access/exchange
files between both worlds, if needed on occasion and ideally use common
profiles for stuff like Mozillas, if that actually would be possible.

I think it may be possible though I have never tried. One thing that
will never work is case sensitivity. If some thing creates eg Readme and
readme OS/2 will only see one, Readme I think.

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
So, in my next try I let Linux also re-format the designated partitions,
when I was assigning the mount points in the installer.
This time, copying the files worked, but I'm still stuck with the
grub-install bug and haven't tried yet, if I now actually could read
those 2 partitions from OS/2.

OS/2 won't read them due to the partition ID

Right! forgot about that one for a moment. But if I'm not mistaken, I
picked up somewhere that (a running) Linux actually doesn't care about
the partition ID, so changing it back later to 35 should make OS/2 happy
then after all, right?

It should

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
I also tried both, booting from the Jaunty Desktop CD and select
Installation, but also boot up the Live system and start the
installation from the Desktop icon. Both ways fail the same way.

Post by Trevor Hemsley
What happens if you manually mount it using
mount -t jfs /dev/sda1 /mnt/jfs
where /dev/sda1 is the right device name and /mnt/jfs is a directory
name that points to an empty directory.

At which point and how would I need to do that during the installation?
I just tried that for the 2 OS/2 JFS partitions on this HDD, which still
show up in Nautilus with that binary (00/01) icon.
I did: sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs1
sudo mkdir /mnt/jfs2
sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda6 /mnt/jfs1
sudo mount -t jfs /dev/sda7 /mnt/jfs2
Ahaaa! I still don't see anything in Nautilus, when I look into
/mnt/jfs1 or/jfs2 - they are both still empty, but this could be due to
user right stuff, right?

This would be the user right stuff. Only root has access at this point.

Post by Wolfi
sudo nautilus
nautilus 13417: Eel-Warning **: GConf-Error: .......
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to open a connection ....
nautilus 13417: Unique-DBus-Warning **: Unable to connect to the .....

I think that sudo is getting its settings from /root which is roots home
directory. And especially in Ubuntu /root doesn't have sane defaults
installed.

Great :-( They are making it really 'easy' for newbies.

They're making it really easy for newbies with a blank drive or only
Windows installed.
The first time I installed Ubuntu, GRUB went in the MBR and there was no
entry for BootManager even though the BootManager partition was the
active on. Other dists always added BootManager, usually just label with
it's partition ID.
I filed a bug and they closed it as cosmetics. Pissed me off especially
as GRUB uses different semantics from LILO which I was used to.

Post by Wolfi
If you can't get it installed in the first place, then you don't need to
worry about it at all ;-)

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi
but: sudo ls /mnt/jfs1 | /jfs2
actually lists the Warp partition stuff :-) Nice!

Yes at this point root has access but not the user wolfi. IIRC you can

At this point right now I am actually still the "Live session user" from
my various installation trials, but apparently it also only has limited
rights.

Post by Dave Yeo
use chmod to change the permissions of /mnt/jfs1 but I really can't
remember how I did it. Try chmod --help.

I actually had a brief look at it, but didn't quite know how to deal
with my "Live session user".
Is that the actual real name being used right now?
How does one query the currently logged-in user?

Good question, perhaps by looking at the name of the home directory or
looking at /etc/password

Post by Wolfi

Post by Dave Yeo
I'd suggest waiting for someone more knowledgeable then me to add to
what I wrote above, but I think (hope) I generally have it right.

I really appreciate that, Dave.
With Linux being so different in so many ways from what I'm familiar
with, I take any help and pointer I can get, most importantly when it
comes to shell syntax.

Dave

[MMI]

Post by Wolfi
Question for those, who have already figured out, how to use JFS
partitions from both, OS/2 and Linux.
Formatting compatible partitions as JFS from eCS / OS/2 apparently is
not compatible with the JFS, current distributions like Ubuntu 9.04
Desktop or SuSE 11.1 are able to deal with.
After having tried that, Linux then only produces some kind of a binary
icon for those JFS drives formatted from within OS/2 / eCS and fails to
actually read from or install to such a JFS partition, unless it is
formatted again by Linux itself.
I didn't notice any possibility for additional FS formatting options in
the graphical installer of Ubuntu Desktop nor eCS.
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

My SuSE 10.3 64bit is able to mount OS/2 formatted JFS HDD in the USB
case. No big deal - just worked (I did the manual mount at that time,
though).

You must create the partition and format it under OS/2. Of course, it
may be possible that Linux creates some files (filenames) that OS/2 will
not be able to deal with (e.g. delete), so that must be done from Linux.

Once I even saved OS/2 JFS partition which OS/2 did not want to
recognize anymore - Linux just mounted it and I copied all the files.

[Andy]

Post by Wolfi
Question for those, who have already figured out, how to use JFS
partitions from both, OS/2 and Linux.
Formatting compatible partitions as JFS from eCS / OS/2 apparently is
not compatible with the JFS, current distributions like Ubuntu 9.04
Desktop or SuSE 11.1 are able to deal with.
After having tried that, Linux then only produces some kind of a binary
icon for those JFS drives formatted from within OS/2 / eCS and fails to
actually read from or install to such a JFS partition, unless it is
formatted again by Linux itself.
I didn't notice any possibility for additional FS formatting options in
the graphical installer of Ubuntu Desktop nor eCS.
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

I have installed Debian and OpenSuSE so far and they both were able to
mount my OS/2 JFS partition. I, however, have not been able to mount
the JFS volume that I installed them onto from OS/2.
Andy

--

[Andy]

On Thu, 7 May 2009 17:48:27 UTC, "Andy"

Post by Andy

Post by Wolfi
Question for those, who have already figured out, how to use JFS
partitions from both, OS/2 and Linux.
Formatting compatible partitions as JFS from eCS / OS/2 apparently is
not compatible with the JFS, current distributions like Ubuntu 9.04
Desktop or SuSE 11.1 are able to deal with.
After having tried that, Linux then only produces some kind of a binary
icon for those JFS drives formatted from within OS/2 / eCS and fails to
actually read from or install to such a JFS partition, unless it is
formatted again by Linux itself.
I didn't notice any possibility for additional FS formatting options in
the graphical installer of Ubuntu Desktop nor eCS.
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

I have installed Debian and OpenSuSE so far and they both were able to
mount my OS/2 JFS partition. I, however, have not been able to mount
the JFS volume that I installed them onto from OS/2.
Andy

I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.
I ended up doing chmod 777 -R jfs (was in /mnt at the time) to be
able to access it. I had to do essentially the same thing to my JFS
USB harddrive. It now works fine but wasn't required under Debian or
OpenSuSE.
Andy
--

[Hendrik Schmieder]

Post by Andy
On Thu, 7 May 2009 17:48:27 UTC, "Andy"

Post by Andy

Post by Wolfi
Question for those, who have already figured out, how to use JFS
partitions from both, OS/2 and Linux.
Formatting compatible partitions as JFS from eCS / OS/2 apparently is
not compatible with the JFS, current distributions like Ubuntu 9.04
Desktop or SuSE 11.1 are able to deal with.
After having tried that, Linux then only produces some kind of a binary
icon for those JFS drives formatted from within OS/2 / eCS and fails to
actually read from or install to such a JFS partition, unless it is
formatted again by Linux itself.
I didn't notice any possibility for additional FS formatting options in
the graphical installer of Ubuntu Desktop nor eCS.
So, where (OS/2 or Linux) and how exactly would I need to apply which
options, when formatting partitions as JFS, so that they can be
understood and accessed by both operating systems?

I have installed Debian and OpenSuSE so far and they both were able to
mount my OS/2 JFS partition. I, however, have not been able to mount
the JFS volume that I installed them onto from OS/2.
Andy

I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.
I ended up doing chmod 777 -R jfs (was in /mnt at the time) to be
able to access it. I had to do essentially the same thing to my JFS
USB harddrive. It now works fine but wasn't required under Debian or
OpenSuSE.

That's no wonder, since Ubuntu is a castrated Debian.
Use Debian instead.

Hendrik

[Wolfi]

Post by Andy
I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.

You actually managed?

For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.

Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.

At least now Colin triaged and reclassified my latest bug report and
changed the Importance level to High.
Now I'm just curious to see, when it will eventually be fixed.

Post by Andy
I ended up doing chmod 777 -R jfs (was in /mnt at the time) to be
able to access it. I had to do essentially the same thing to my JFS
USB harddrive. It now works fine but wasn't required under Debian or
OpenSuSE.

[Dave Yeo]

Post by Wolfi

Post by Andy
I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.

You actually managed?
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.
Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.

Why not just install Grub in the MBR? I haven't been able to install the
latest Ubuntu due to what seems like broken CD (DVD) drive issues but
the install made it to 90% fine.
Previously I did install Ubuntu with Grub in the MBR, I just edited the
grub menu to add the BootManager and had a couple of seconds added to
the boot procedure.
Of course the installer should add the BootManager to the Grub menu just
based on the fact that BootManager was the active partition before the
install.
I did file a bug about this issue, it got marked cosmetics and I never
felt the same about Ubuntu.

Post by Wolfi
At least now Colin triaged and reclassified my latest bug report and
changed the Importance level to High.
Now I'm just curious to see, when it will eventually be fixed.

Post by Andy
I ended up doing chmod 777 -R jfs (was in /mnt at the time) to be
able to access it. I had to do essentially the same thing to my JFS
USB harddrive. It now works fine but wasn't required under Debian or
OpenSuSE.

This is my experience as well though it could be argued from a security
standpoint that mounting file systems with no permissions is a no-no.
Dave

[Wolfi]

Post by Dave Yeo

Post by Wolfi

Post by Andy
I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.

You actually managed?
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.
Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.

Why not just install Grub in the MBR? I haven't been able to install the
latest Ubuntu due to what seems like broken CD (DVD) drive issues but
the install made it to 90% fine.

I don't want GRUB to become my primary bootloader. That is and remains
the OS/2 BM. GRUB is here only accepted to be a chain-loaded secondary
BM and that (in addition with JFS) just doesn't work for all the years I
tried to get familiar with Ubuntu/Linux.

Post by Dave Yeo
Previously I did install Ubuntu with Grub in the MBR, I just edited the
grub menu to add the BootManager and had a couple of seconds added to
the boot procedure.
Of course the installer should add the BootManager to the Grub menu just
based on the fact that BootManager was the active partition before the
install.
I did file a bug about this issue, it got marked cosmetics and I never
felt the same about Ubuntu.

Considering the 4+ year time frame for a bug, which prevents the
successful installation of Ubuntu, if one uses any combination of the
presented valid installer options other than MBR and ext[n], causing it
to abort and not classifying such a severe bug as show stopper and fix
it better yesterday rather than tomorrow, is beyond me and deeply
disappointing and frustrating.

If the darn thing doesn't install, it's useless. How more severe can it get?

[Andy]

Post by Wolfi

Post by Andy
I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.

You actually managed?
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.

I installed Ubuntu on a JFS partition. I created a 8M ext2 partition
I mounted as /grub and installed grub on it. Before I did that, it
kept failing to install grub too.
Andy

[Wolfi]

Post by Andy

Post by Wolfi

Post by Andy
I've now installed Jaunty Ubuntu and it mounted the OS/2 JFS drive but
I could not read it.

You actually managed?
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.

I installed Ubuntu on a JFS partition. I created a 8M ext2 partition
I mounted as /grub and installed grub on it. Before I did that, it
kept failing to install grub too.

By running the last failed command listed in /var/log/user.log:

sudo chroot /target grub-install --no-floppy --debug "/dev/sda9"

manually from a GTerminal (with only --debug added as described in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/123102/comments/5),
that part now actually seemed to have succeeded.

Only problem then, when I boot up, I'm getting stuck with a GRUB command
prompt, since apparently the creation/adjustment of some config files
telling GRUB, where to continue to actually load the Linux kernel, are
still missing.

Not yet knowing my way around, I'm stuck again after all :-(

[Dave Yeo]

On 05/23/09 09:11 am, Wolfi wrote:
...

Post by Wolfi
Only problem then, when I boot up, I'm getting stuck with a GRUB command
prompt, since apparently the creation/adjustment of some config files
telling GRUB, where to continue to actually load the Linux kernel, are
still missing.
Not yet knowing my way around, I'm stuck again after all :-(

You might want to look at http://www.supergrubdisk.org/
Dave

[Wolfi]

Post by Dave Yeo
...

Post by Wolfi
Only problem then, when I boot up, I'm getting stuck with a GRUB command
prompt, since apparently the creation/adjustment of some config files
telling GRUB, where to continue to actually load the Linux kernel, are
still missing.
Not yet knowing my way around, I'm stuck again after all :-(

You might want to look at http://www.supergrubdisk.org/

Thanks Dave.
According to Canonical's Colin Watson it actually was a long standing
bug in GRUB, which always affected Ubuntu, but for whatever reason, not
some other distris (f.e. Mint, SuSE), using it as well (maybe they did
their own secretive patching).
He now officially fixed it and also fed the patch back to Debian, so
Ubuntu's daily builds of the upcoming new release should already make
use of it.

[ML]

[C:\]dir /var/log/u*
SYS1003: The syntax of the command is incorrect.
Error occurred while processing: /u*.



---

[Dave Yeo]

Post by ML
[C:\]dir /var/log/u*
SYS1003: The syntax of the command is incorrect.
Error occurred while processing: /u*.

What command shell are you using? For cmd.exe it has to be dir \var\log\u*
Dave

[Wolfi]

Post by Wolfi
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.
Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.
At least now Colin triaged and reclassified my latest bug report and
changed the Importance level to High.
Now I'm just curious to see, when it will eventually be fixed.

Hallelujah! This now finally happened yesterday. :-)

After plaguing mostly Ubuntu since as far back as 2004-10-03
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/8746),
Colin eventually traced it down to a GRUB cache coherency problem
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=362028#69)

Apparently other distris like SuSE and Mint either got really lucky or
found ways to work around this bug, but apparently w/o feeding the
solution back to Debian.

So the next release of Ubuntu in October, as well as the LTS Hardy
8.04.4 update next January, should for the very first time be cured of
this nasty Grub installation-prevention bug. :-)

[David H. Durgee]

Post by Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.
Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.
At least now Colin triaged and reclassified my latest bug report and
changed the Importance level to High.
Now I'm just curious to see, when it will eventually be fixed.

Hallelujah! This now finally happened yesterday. :-)
After plaguing mostly Ubuntu since as far back as 2004-10-03
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/8746),
Colin eventually traced it down to a GRUB cache coherency problem
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=362028#69)
Apparently other distris like SuSE and Mint either got really lucky or
found ways to work around this bug, but apparently w/o feeding the
solution back to Debian.
So the next release of Ubuntu in October, as well as the LTS Hardy
8.04.4 update next January, should for the very first time be cured of
this nasty Grub installation-prevention bug. :-)

Am I reading this correctly that I should be able to install either
SuSE or Mint with GRUB in a PBR and to a JFS partition? If so, how
exactly will I need to set things up? I would like to create the
partitions with DFSee to ensure they are OS/2 - eCS compatible and
format the JFS partition from eCS for the same reason. I would prefer
to minimize the number of partitions specific to Linux. I assume I
will need a swap partition as well as the Linux root, but will I need
a separate partition for GRUB or can it be installed in the Linux
root?

I have been looking recently at Mint in particular as they have an
x86_64 distro and I have an Intel Core 2 quad Q8200 system here. I
wanted to see if Linux works better at this point on this system that
the eCS 2.0 RC6a release which has some issues I have been unable to
resolve at this point. If Linux works much better then I might look
into the possibility of eCS in a virtual machine as an alternative to
directly booting eCS.

-- Dave

[Wolfi]

Post by David H. Durgee

Post by Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.
Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.
At least now Colin triaged and reclassified my latest bug report and
changed the Importance level to High.
Now I'm just curious to see, when it will eventually be fixed.

Hallelujah! This now finally happened yesterday. :-)
After plaguing mostly Ubuntu since as far back as 2004-10-03
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/8746),
Colin eventually traced it down to a GRUB cache coherency problem
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=362028#69)
Apparently other distris like SuSE and Mint either got really lucky or
found ways to work around this bug, but apparently w/o feeding the
solution back to Debian.
So the next release of Ubuntu in October, as well as the LTS Hardy
8.04.4 update next January, should for the very first time be cured of
this nasty Grub installation-prevention bug. :-)

Am I reading this correctly that I should be able to install either
SuSE or Mint with GRUB in a PBR and to a JFS partition?

I haven't tried yet with the latest SuSE 11.1, but with the previous
versions that always worked fine for me. Just over the weekend I
eventually replaced my LinuxMint Gloria (V7) RC with the final release,
while still trying out different things on this rejuvenated laptop I
brought back to live a few months ago.
I'm using 2 JFS partitions, one for / and one for /home and directed the
Grub1 stage-1.5 loader stuff to the PBR of /home, plus the unavoidable
/swap (even though I'd read a little while ago, that nowadays using just
a swap _file_ rather than a partition would be just as performant, but
haven't found a way yet, to convince the installer not to insist on such
a partition).
For some unknown to me reason, Mint somehow doesn't suffer from this
GRUB bug, that Canonical's Colin Watson now finally fixed just days ago
and that was plaguing Ubuntu ever since.

Post by David H. Durgee
If so, how
exactly will I need to set things up? I would like to create the
partitions with DFSee to ensure they are OS/2 - eCS compatible and
format the JFS partition from eCS for the same reason.

I created the partitions from OS/2, just for the same reasons you are
concerned about, but in the meantime allowed Linux several times by now,
to (re-)do the formatting. So far I haven't seen any ill side effects.

Post by David H. Durgee
I would prefer
to minimize the number of partitions specific to Linux. I assume I
will need a swap partition as well as the Linux root, but will I need
a separate partition for GRUB or can it be installed in the Linux
root?

With my setup as outline above, the bigger chunks of GRUB end up in
/boot/GRUB on the root partition.

Post by David H. Durgee
I have been looking recently at Mint in particular as they have an
x86_64 distro and I have an Intel Core 2 quad Q8200 system here. I

Ubuntu does as well, but what I liked about Mint, is that "tainted"
MM-codes are installed right away, so that there is no need to first run
around and additionally install f.e. the one for playing mp3.

I also haven't figured out yet, how I can force Mint, to keep the
external CRT with the higher resolution alive during bootup, when the
GUI starts to take over. Using the laptop's according Fn key combination
just doesn't do the switching then anymore.
The display settings show and offer options for both displays, but
unfortunately nothing that would allow to enforce the switch.

The daily builds from http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current
should already contain the GRUB bug fix, but due to my only 64kb/s
connection, I haven't bothered yet, trying to d/l one of those.

Post by David H. Durgee
wanted to see if Linux works better at this point on this system that
the eCS 2.0 RC6a release which has some issues I have been unable to
resolve at this point. If Linux works much better then I might look
into the possibility of eCS in a virtual machine as an alternative to
directly booting eCS.

Since I don't get driver support in eCS/OS/2 for my TI based CardBus
slot, which I depend on, I'm planning on doing the same thing. Only
shortcoming is that, I can have only a max. of 1GB of RAM, which for
running an additional VM, isn't just that much.

[David H. Durgee]

Post by Wolfi

Post by David H. Durgee

Post by Wolfi

Post by Wolfi
For me that stupid, century old Ubuntu Desktop installer bug still
prevents me from getting it on my HDD.
It always aborts when it comes to create /boot/grub and finish the grub
related stuff.
Of course I don't want GRUB to be in the MBR, so it has to go in a PBR
and I also don't want any ext[n] fs, but JFS instead and that just seems
to be an impossible thing to do for the most popular of all Linux
distributions, since at least some 4+ years now
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/185878
pay special attention to the "duplicates", where in fact most of them
are actually the ancestors rather than the copies).
It is really disappointing and frustrating.
At least now Colin triaged and reclassified my latest bug report and
changed the Importance level to High.
Now I'm just curious to see, when it will eventually be fixed.

Hallelujah! This now finally happened yesterday. :-)
After plaguing mostly Ubuntu since as far back as 2004-10-03
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/8746),
Colin eventually traced it down to a GRUB cache coherency problem
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=362028#69)
Apparently other distris like SuSE and Mint either got really lucky or
found ways to work around this bug, but apparently w/o feeding the
solution back to Debian.
So the next release of Ubuntu in October, as well as the LTS Hardy
8.04.4 update next January, should for the very first time be cured of
this nasty Grub installation-prevention bug. :-)

Am I reading this correctly that I should be able to install either
SuSE or Mint with GRUB in a PBR and to a JFS partition?

I haven't tried yet with the latest SuSE 11.1, but with the previous
versions that always worked fine for me. Just over the weekend I
eventually replaced my LinuxMint Gloria (V7) RC with the final release,
while still trying out different things on this rejuvenated laptop I
brought back to live a few months ago.
I'm using 2 JFS partitions, one for / and one for /home and directed the
Grub1 stage-1.5 loader stuff to the PBR of /home, plus the unavoidable
/swap (even though I'd read a little while ago, that nowadays using just
a swap _file_ rather than a partition would be just as performant, but
haven't found a way yet, to convince the installer not to insist on such
a partition).
For some unknown to me reason, Mint somehow doesn't suffer from this
GRUB bug, that Canonical's Colin Watson now finally fixed just days ago
and that was plaguing Ubuntu ever since.

Post by David H. Durgee
If so, how
exactly will I need to set things up? I would like to create the
partitions with DFSee to ensure they are OS/2 - eCS compatible and
format the JFS partition from eCS for the same reason.

I created the partitions from OS/2, just for the same reasons you are
concerned about, but in the meantime allowed Linux several times by now,
to (re-)do the formatting. So far I haven't seen any ill side effects.

I just tried things yesterday with mixed results.

My first attempt was to install mint to a partition already formatted
with JFS from OS/2 and with /boot/grub created from OS/2 as well give
the problems noted about getting grub to install. This resulted in
install aborting about 59% of the way through. I was able to boot a
grub floppy and install grub to the boot sector after copying the
appropriate stage files from my LiveCD boot. I was then able to boot
the partition to a grub command line, but attempting to issue a kernel
command resulted in FILE NOT FOUND errors. I assume that this was due
to the state of the aborted install. I attempted this both from the
mint desktop and booting directly to the installer with similar
results. I saved some of the files from the /var/log in case they are
of interest in debugging.

I next attempted an install allowing the installer to format the
partition in JFS as part of the install. This resulted in a completed
install, but the partition is no longer readable from OS/2 - eCS and
DFSee reports several problems with the partition.

I sent an e-mail to the JFS contact noted on the sourceforge website
and his response was that the install failure might be related to the
OS/2 - eCS case insensitive setting and that the default linux jfs
file system was not compatible with OS/2 - eCS and that I might want
to try using the -O option with mkfs when formatting from linux. As I
don't see any way to pass options to the format from the installer I
guess that means I will need to format from the LiveCD desktop and
then start the installer to accomplish this. I wrote back to him
asking if the -O option will also invoke case insensitivity, but I
have not yet received his response.

Given the grub install is not the problem using mint I think I am
going to try having DFSee fix the partition problems it sees. If that
doesn;'t yield a working JFS partition from both environments I will
then format the partition again from eCS 2.0 RC6a but leave it
otherwise untouched. I will then boot to my LiveCD desktop and run
fsck against the partition and fix any problems prior to attempting
another install. If this fails I will attempt a mkfs from the desktop
with a -O option and see if that works. Beyond that point I will need
to await responses from JFS and DFSee support.

If you ever figure out how to avoid the swap partition let me know, as
I would be interested in setting up a single linux paritition with a
swapfile instead if it can be done.

Post by Wolfi

Post by David H. Durgee
I would prefer
to minimize the number of partitions specific to Linux. I assume I
will need a swap partition as well as the Linux root, but will I need
a separate partition for GRUB or can it be installed in the Linux
root?

With my setup as outline above, the bigger chunks of GRUB end up in
/boot/GRUB on the root partition.

Post by David H. Durgee
I have been looking recently at Mint in particular as they have an
x86_64 distro and I have an Intel Core 2 quad Q8200 system here. I

Ubuntu does as well, but what I liked about Mint, is that "tainted"
MM-codes are installed right away, so that there is no need to first run
around and additionally install f.e. the one for playing mp3.
I also haven't figured out yet, how I can force Mint, to keep the
external CRT with the higher resolution alive during bootup, when the
GUI starts to take over. Using the laptop's according Fn key combination
just doesn't do the switching then anymore.
The display settings show and offer options for both displays, but
unfortunately nothing that would allow to enforce the switch.

In my case I have to edit the default boot for the LiveCD to add
vga=792 to even get a working desktop. Perhaps you need to add
options somewhere to get the support you need.

Post by Wolfi
The daily builds from http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current
should already contain the GRUB bug fix, but due to my only 64kb/s
connection, I haven't bothered yet, trying to d/l one of those.

Post by David H. Durgee
wanted to see if Linux works better at this point on this system that
the eCS 2.0 RC6a release which has some issues I have been unable to
resolve at this point. If Linux works much better then I might look
into the possibility of eCS in a virtual machine as an alternative to
directly booting eCS.

Since I don't get driver support in eCS/OS/2 for my TI based CardBus
slot, which I depend on, I'm planning on doing the same thing. Only
shortcoming is that, I can have only a max. of 1GB of RAM, which for
running an additional VM, isn't just that much.

I am running eCS 1.x on my ThinkPAD 600E and have the proper CardBus
driver for the TI chipset on that unit. My memory on that unit is
544M, so I am under even more constraints there. I tried installing
eCS 2.0 RC2 on that system, but it had problems so I am sticking with
eCS 1.x for now. At some point I might try a later RC, but I am
unsure if I will see better support.

-- Dave

[David H. Durgee]

I have tried a few more things attempting to get a JFS partition that
OS/2 - eCS can access and that will remain a bootable linux partition
without success. I got close by formatting and installing from my
linux LiveCD boot, booting to eCS 2.0 RC6a and using DFSee to "fix"
the boot sector and boot loader followed by a boot of a GRUB floppy to
reinstall the GRUB boot. This actually booted as far as the GRUB
graphic menu and allowed me to select and start booting linux, but the
boot failed with a file not found for "/bin/sh", so things appear to
have been mangled. I ran jfs_fsck at that point and got a tremendous
number of errors, so this approach appears to need work.

I have sent an e-mail to Jan regarding what DFSee is doing when
"fixing" the JFS boot sector and loader, as the documentation appers
to indicate it references the superblock for data but what I am seeing
appears to indicate it is also changing the superblock. Hopefully he
can help resolve this issue.

I have also exchanged a few e-mails with the JFS maintainer at the IBM
Linux Technology Center, who is willing to fix any bugs located and
answer questions consistant with the fact this is a part-time job for
him. He indicated that the differences are some flags in the
superblock and slight differences in the directory structures between
the two. As I can mount and work with the OS/2 - eCS formatted
partition from linux it would appear that the linux JFS support is
more robust that the OS/2 - eCS support at present, as neither eCS 2.0
RC6a nor DFSee recognizes the linux formatted partition as JFS at all.

For now I am going to do some further testing with linux with the
partitions as they stand. Hopefully Jan, possibly with some further
information from the JFS maintainer, can find a way to modify the boot
sector in a way that eCS 2.0 RC6a will recognize without killing
linux. I intend to make a backup of some sort before trying this
again, as I am getting somewhat sick of reinstalling linux. I guess
it is even possible that only the installer is having problems and
that I would be able to restore a linux backup to an eCS 2.0 RC6a
formatted partition, but given prior experience this might be wishful
thinking.

-- Dave

[David H. Durgee]

I have found a method to create a bootable linux JFS partition that is
acceptable to DFSee. Unfortunately current OS/2 - eCS JFS support
appears incompatible and will either not see the partition or will
corrupt it. So until theOS/2 - eCS JFS.IFS is updated to recognize
and work with linux formatted JFS partitions in a manner similar to
linux working with OS/2 - eCS formatted JFS this approach is of
limited value.

For those of you who would like to try this yourself, you will need an
eCS 2.0 RC6a system, DFSee 9.15 and a linix LiveCD to work with. In
my case I am using the LinuxMint Gloria x64 release.

First create a partition for the linux JFS partition with DFSee as a
bootable JFS partition. Next boot the linux LiveCD and format the
partition. Return to eCS and use DFSee to "correct" the boot sector
and loader to match OS/2 - eCS expections. You will need to open the
partition and force it into JFS mode as it will not be recognized
automatically. Next issue a "sync 2" command to correct the damage
done to the first superblock by the boot sector fixes. If you inspect
the superblock it should show "linux dirs" as set.

At this point you should be able to boot the linux LiveCD and install
to the partition. In my particular case I had already done so to
another partition and simply copied it over per the directions at the
JFS sourceforge site. I then made the documented changes to
/etc/fstab and the grub menu and booted a grub floppy to install the
grub boot. I suspect an install would not require the grub boot step,
but I could be wrong about that.

I then booted eCS and looked at the partition with DFSee to verify it
still looked good and added it to the boot manager menu. The drive
letter associated with the partition was not readable at this point,
but it looked good in DFSee. I then shutdown and booted the new
partition via boot manager and verified it was working as expected.

I note that there are OS/2 - eCS problems, as when I next booted eCS
the drive was "readable", but once I tried to go into a subdirectory
off the root all sorts of problems started. When I next attempted to
boot the partition it failed, so it appears things got mangled when
OS/2 - eCS mounted the partition.

I also tried another copy to an OS/2 - eCS formatted JFS partition to
see where the install/copy problems were. I found that /lib and /usr
are the problem and all other directories off the root were fine with
the copy to an OS/2 - eCS formatted partition.

At this point I guess I am going have to forget having the linux boot
partition access from OS/2 - eCS until the JFS.IFS is fixed to support
linux formatted partitions. I can format partitions to be used by
both with eCS, but the linux boot will not be one of them. If anyone
finds a better way to get this working please let me know.

-- Dave

[David T. Johnson]

Post by David H. Durgee
At this point I guess I am going have to forget having the linux boot
partition access from OS/2 - eCS until the JFS.IFS is fixed to support
linux formatted partitions. I can format partitions to be used by
both with eCS, but the linux boot will not be one of them. If anyone
finds a better way to get this working please let me know.

JFS on Linux is not quite the same as JFS on OS/2. JFS on Linux was
taken from JFS on OS/2 source code in December, 1999. Since that time,
development of the two has proceeded independently and compatibility
between the two has not been a goal of either one. You might have
better luck, though, if you didn't try to use a bootable partition for
mutual access. Another idea would be to create two 'mirror' partitions,
one with JFS-OS2 and one with JFS-Linux. Then, whichever OS was active
would just have read-only access to the other OS's JFS partition and
would then automatically mirror it to its own JFS partition for use
during operations.

[Hendrik Schmieder]

Post by David H. Durgee
If you ever figure out how to avoid the swap partition let me know, as
I would be interested in setting up a single linux paritition with a
swapfile instead if it can be done.

It can be done, but it is not recommanded (slower performance).

BTW:
swap partition can be logical.

Hendrik