On 9/14/05, andy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Easily done. Mount your NT partition through samba, and run dd. An
> example would be:
> dd if=/dev/cobd0 of=/mnt/disk.image
well at image creation time I will be running linux native
not CL so I can mount the partition directly but I think
it doesn't want mounting (I just need access to the device
file in /dev I think).
Presumably what I do is
dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/somepathToFileOnSomeDisk
is that correct ? What about block size ?
> a) For the linux-in-a-partition that also runs with CL on
> w2k is there a size limit - does that partition have
> to be <= 4G to run with CL w2k ? (that would be a shame).
> No. This 4gig file limit only applies to FAT32, AFAIK. Even NTFS can
> work with images larger than 4gig (I've run 6 gig images before). Also,
> if you're running FAT32 on a colinux system, you can get around this 2
> gig limit by using RAID devices if disk size is upmost importance (and
That was my question. My daughter's machine has FAT32 so I presume I
can only use up to 2G if I want to use it with CL on there.
I could *build* it on an external disk but that subverts one aim which
is to leave the running system on her machine as well.
The point is that since it will run on my box which is ntfs its a shame
if it has to be limited to 2G. I'd move her to xp cept it aint so
freely avail without license as w2k.
I had thought of running her box on ntfs - anyone know, what does
ntfs do functionally (above block level/fs access level) that's
different to FAT32 ? I mean could I rsync/tar/whatever her system,
format a partition as ntfs and put it on there ? Since I read
in many places that linux doesn't support ntfs functionality I
always presumed there was functionality related to the OS
implemented in it differently to on fat32 so that you couldn't
just lift a w2k system from one and plonk it on another and have it
run. Is that correct ? What is it that isn't implemented
in normal unix filesystem access to ntfs that would make that
not work ?