Hi experts,
I’m not yet at the boot loader configuration stage, 
I’ve spent 2 nights trying to setup a suse 11.1/vista basic sp1 multiboot… vista wouldn’t install… I probably missed sth, but remain now stuck in that very first step with my brand new config (grmbgrmbl) and out of ideas, hence this SOS post.
**
Scenario:**
Current status:
- all partitionning done with the Suse installation tool (Yast?). suse 11.0 64bits installed successfully. Here is a copy of the partitioner screen:
/root/partition.jpg
- I keep getting the following error message from vista
"Windows is unable to find a system volume that meets its criteria for installation"
- I went trough MS tech support posts and support. The most relevant I found is [You cannot select or format a hard disk partition when you try to install Windows Vista](http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B933171&x=18&y=19))
- Now:
- Setupact.log shows that /dev/sdb1 is active, the only partition active in fact, and recognized as NTFS. I activated it manually with diskpart, and also did a quick formatting of the 2 NTFS and the FAT32 partitions.
- when I reboot with the vista install disk, and come to the "where do you want to install?" screen, all partitions appear correctly but the error message keeps coming when I select that same partition ("disk 0 partition 1" for windows), or any other by the way.
- I suspect I did something wrong in the partitionning, but what? I do not think it is an issue with the HD drivers, because diskpart could activate and format partitions, and because the installer can read the partitions. Am I correct in this? Besides the HW is brand new and no HW issue is "beeped" during the POST.
Questions:
1- on which HDs install the OSes?
From what I read, it seemed that installation on separate HDs made more sense, mainly because of the 3+1 partitions limitation, so that is what I chose for now, but I can change.
2- Sharing space: which FS? I initially dedicated a FAT32
3- THE key question for now: any help about the problem?
Thanks in advance for any input that can bring me forward, and sorry for such a question, probably very basic.
Er, sorry, I can’t use attachment it seems.
Here is a hand copy of the partitioner screen:
/dev/sda 698.6 GB SAMSUNG-HD753LJ 0 91200
/dev/sda1 203.9 MB Linux native /boot l 0 25
/dev/sda2 2.0 GB Linux swap swap l 26 287
/dev/sda3 30.0 GB Linux native / l 288 4204
/dev/sda4 666.4 GB Extended 4205 91200
/dev/sda5 70.0 GB Linux native /home l
/dev/sda6 596.4 GB HPFS/NTFS 13343 91200
/dev/sdb 465.7 GB WDC-WD5001AALS-0 0 68800
/dev/sdb1 450.0 GB HPFS/NTFS 0 58743
/dev/sdb2 15.7 GB Win95 FAT32 LBA 58744 60800
The FAT32 is probably too big, I realize.
Hi. From the last: fat32 is not too big, infact it’s possible to have a 128gb partition. Isuggest to install vista on the first drive on a primary partition. About Suse: it’s possible to install it on an extended partition. So i would suggestto give vista an ntfs partition the size about 40gb, primary, then an extended (logical)partition type ext3 for linux, the size you prefer.
on the second hd prepare an ext3 partition (primary or logical isn’t important) for swapping files between the systems and a swap partition (at least 2gb).
Now install first vista, then opensuse in their own partitions. maybe you want to have separate home partition , in this case split the ext3 between / and /home. when both the systems are up, launch vista and install ext2ifs. It will give you access to the shared partition for swapping data. Hope it help
bcrisciotti,
thanks for your input.
Isuggest to install vista on the first drive on a primary partition
Suse and Vista seem to disagree about which is first: dev/sda is Samsung for suse and “disk 0” is western digital for vista. that’s the one I intend to install it onto. Is that what you mean?
Now install first vista, then opensuse in their own partitions
I can do that… but any reason why itshould be in that order (like suse boot loader will override vista’s?)
… working on a repartionning based on your advice
thx again.
Hi,
I'm getting ready to re-partition and re-install everything - will keep me busy for a couple of hours if all ok.
Before I start some confirmation on the 2 items below would be helpful:
1. Partitionning
-
disk1:
-
primary 1, NTFS, ~ 400 gig, for vista system
-
extended:
[LIST]
-
logical 1: swap, 8 gig - just to keep it on the same disk as the system
-
logical 2: ext 3, 20gig, for /
-
logical 3: ext 3, 80gig, for /home
[/LIST]
-
disk2:
-
primary 1: ext3, 15 gig for swapping files with ext2fs
-
primary 2: NTFS: the rest.
This is quite simpler than my current layout. You didn't mention a /boot partition, so I suppose it is in fact not necessary.
2. First drive
How do I know for sure what the first drive is? (first in the boot sequence or in the device chain?)
You have flexibility to take the easiest approach since you’re doing clean installs:
Install Vista first, on whichever it sees as the first drive. Make sure that it is also the drive configured in the bios to boot first. It is conceivable that the 2 OS’s will not see the disks in the same order (I’ll leave the technical reasons out). That usually doesn’t matter. Windows mostly prefers that its boot disk be the first configured for boot and it be the first disk it sees. Because it is much less flexible that linux, let it have what it wants.
Also let Vista create its own partitions - it uses different partitioning rules than XP or anything else for that matter. The differences are rather esoteric, suffice it to say it’s possible to run into difficult to diagnose/fix problems, so best to just use Vista for its own partitions. Vista will make the partition active. While you’re at it, do yourself a favor and plan for a second Vista partition - not the shared one - for the “Users” subdirectory (in XP that’s “Documents and Settings”); you can define a re-directed target partition for Users which will put your Vista user config/data separate from the OS, and with drives your size, that will come in handy later for backups, etc. You might also reconsider the size and type of the shared partition; linux can read/write to NTFS and NTFS is not constrained to 4GB file size. A shared data partition is best used for static or transient data, as linux will not write to the journal.
With all the space you have, installing openSUSE on either drive is fine. As a general rule, it’s not great to have any OS on an enormous partition; that only ends up with mushing together all sorts of user data with the OS. What is a consideration is the booting. If you install Vista and have the Vista disk configured as first boot, then install openSUSE on the second disk (you can point the installation to whichever disk you wish), openSUSE will by default write to the Vista disk MBR with a pointer back to the second disk for its boot loader. You may wish alternatively to have Vista control initiating the boot process, by installing grub to the openSUSE root partition on the other disk and then pointing the Vista boot loader to “chainload” to the openSUSE grub (pre-Vista cannot do this). This actually works very well and keeps the boot loader software components completely separated between the OS’s and the disks. The only downside is that the tool in Vista to set this up is horrific, but there is a nifty very popular (and free) tool named EasyBCD which handles this with ease. fyi, it’s here Download EasyBCD 1.7.2 - NeoSmart Technologies. This method may also avoid any boot complications with Vista and linux seeing the disks in a different order.
Thanks for the explanations. I understand it would be too long to explain the disk identification issue, i’m interested if there is some reading about it your can point me to (is there any?).
I’m starting now by deleting all existing partitions and letting vista have its ways… be hopefully back on line in not too long a while to report on progress 
This site has, to the best of my knowledge, the most complete description of Vista partitioning and boot compatibility issues http://www.multibooters.co.uk/.
Re identifying the disks: No, I can’t think of any. So I’ll try an overview. There are multiple factors in the equation: Integrated chipsets that now handle all the disks (whereas initially SATA was controlled by a separate device), mobo identification and circuitry, how the bios reads the former two, how the bios writes its hardware map, how the bios writes the acpi tables, and whether the OS is using the tables or the map to read the hardware. Additional factors can be USB or eSATA drives and how the bios handles those. Usually the end of this chain - the OS - will see the order the same, but not always. In particular, I’ve seen SATA now place in front of IDE, and I’ve seen SATA order as seen on the mobo vs the bios vs in the OS to be different.
As a rule it doesn’t matter, because Windows doesn’t really care (except about the boot drive). It still uses the archaic DOS drive cross-referencing scheme (aka “drive letters” which in fact are not drives at all, but are volumes or partitions); the index is stored in the “disk signature” section of the MBR and carries thru extensively in the registry. So Windows is always looking for a drive letter and from there finding the disk, whichever it may be.
In linux, traditionally “device-name” has been used for identification, i.e., sda, sdb, sdc, etc. But with the advent of SATA and storage device portability and consequences as described above, linux distros now try to use persistent drive names using the disk serial number (the SuSE default) or volume-label (also an option in Windows) or the UUID. When you install openSUSE just be sure that the disk you select for installation is the one you actually want; at that point it will be displayed to you only by device-name. But the installation when it subsequently sets up the disk mount and boot control files, will use /dev/by-id (the serial number) which will correctly cross-reference to the device-name it sees.
As I posted before, the only likely place where you could run into needing to tweak due to a diff in linux vs Windows drive ordering, will be in the boot setup. Odds are, not even that.
Back again with an operational vista.
Status:
partitions as you advised. Install went actually well and quick once the partitionning was bare from the start. In sh
About your additionnal input:
- I logged the link to “Mutlibooters” in my favorites, very good tip for my level of understanding, thanks.
- you succeeded in the overview: I think I get the picture and the impact for each OS. I can assign partitions to each OS clearly, and I gather thats the main thing I need.
For complement
I checked the Bios:
- Samsung is on the channel 0, master
- WD on channel 1, master
Samsung was the first polled during the boot sequence, I switched it to WD, which I used as vista system disk.
I used vista to configure NTFS volumes on both drives. I left an unallocated free space on the second drive to hold the Suse system
Now i need to update a few drivers… and get some sleep. Be back for the Suse install.
Thanx again.
Sounds like you are the right track . . .