Redhat-install-list Digest, Vol 2, Issue 30

Thu Apr 29 10:34:33 UTC 2004

redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com wrote:

>Send Redhat-install-list mailing list submissions to
>	redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	redhat-install-list-owner at redhat.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Redhat-install-list digest..."
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: last thing question (Rick Stevens)
>   2. Re: last thing question (GoijI P)
>   3. Re: ES 3.0 Typical/Everything Disk Space Info (Rick Stevens)
>   4. Re: last thing question (Rick Stevens)
>   5. Re: ES 3.0 Typical/Everything Disk Space Info (Rick Stevens)
>   6. rh9 out Fedora in (David Cartwright)
>   7. Re: rh9 out Fedora in (Bob McClure Jr)
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: last thing question
> From:
> Rick Stevens <rstevens at vitalstream.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:36:57 -0700
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
>
> Nigel Wade wrote:
>
>> GoijI P wrote:
>>
>>>> or by: # cd /usr/bin # ./program-to-run
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> this is excatly what i did. i got "command not found".
>>>
>>
>> What do you get if you run
>> # ls -l ./program-to-run
>>
>> I've seen a misleading 'command not found' when the command is a 
>> script with a '#!' first line which pointed to an executable which 
>> was not accessible. Could this be the case here?
>
>
> Possible, but since I have no idea which command he was trying to run
> and he hasn't posted since, my guess is that he either figured it out
> or gave up.
>
> Can't do any more without more info. My guess is that since he could
> run the program when on a console but not via telnet, he had a path
> problem.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens at vitalstream.com -
> - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
> - -
> - "If you can't fix it...duct tape it!" - Tim Allen -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: last thing question
> From:
> "GoijI P" <goijiud at hotmail.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:28 -0400
> To:
> redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>
> To:
> redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>
>
> it was a path problem.fixed it.
> many thanks.
>
>> From: Rick Stevens <rstevens at vitalstream.com>
>> Reply-To: Getting started with Red Hat Linux 
>> <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>> To: Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>> Subject: Re: last thing question
>> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:36:57 -0700
>>
>> Nigel Wade wrote:
>>
>>> GoijI P wrote:
>>>
>>>>> or by: # cd /usr/bin # ./program-to-run
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> this is excatly what i did. i got "command not found".
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you get if you run
>>> # ls -l ./program-to-run
>>>
>>> I've seen a misleading 'command not found' when the command is a 
>>> script with a '#!' first line which pointed to an executable which 
>>> was not accessible. Could this be the case here?
>>
>>
>> Possible, but since I have no idea which command he was trying to run
>> and he hasn't posted since, my guess is that he either figured it out
>> or gave up.
>>
>> Can't do any more without more info. My guess is that since he could
>> run the program when on a console but not via telnet, he had a path
>> problem.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens at vitalstream.com -
>> - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
>> - -
>> - "If you can't fix it...duct tape it!" - Tim Allen -
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>> Subject: unsubscribe
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! 
> http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: ES 3.0 Typical/Everything Disk Space Info
> From:
> Rick Stevens <rstevens at vitalstream.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:12:11 -0700
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
>
> Carr, Steve M CW4 FL-ARNG wrote:
>
>> Rick, picking automatic partitioning and load everything 
>> automatically loads
>> everything under the "/ (root)" directory. 
>
>
> Everything is ALWAYS under the "/" directory (that's why it's called
> "root" :-) ). The question is whether things such as "/usr" are simple
> directories or mountpoints where other filesystems are mounted. In my
> example at the bottom of this post, you can see that /usr, /var, /images
> and /work are separate filesystems. A similar table for the running
> system to yours would show:
>
> [root at prophead /]# du -hs
> 52G .
>
> [root at prophead /]# du -hs *
> 5.5M bin
> 4.5M boot
> 428K dev
> 42M etc
> 0 home (symlink to /usr/home)
> 35G images
> 85M lib
> 16K lost+found
> 4.0K misc
> 20K mnt
> 4.0K oldsys
> 4.0K opt
> 515M proc
> 1.9M root
> 17M sbin
> 52K tftpboot
> 684K tmp
> 12G usr
> 775M var
> 3.3G work
>
> So one would think 52G is in "/", when in reality, only 773M is actually
> in "/" (see my table below). The rest is in filesystems MOUNTED under
> "/". This is why you must be really clear about the differences between
> directories and filesystems.
>
>> I added another line for clarification. Thanks for pointing out the 
>> confusion of the table. 
>
>
> That's my job! ;-P
>
>>
>>
>>> If you are planning to manual configure your partitions this will 
>>> help in
>>> determining partition sizes.
>>> RedHat's documentation says ("/" 350MB-5GB) and ("/var" 3GB or larger).
>>>
>>> This info was gather using Automatic Partition
>>>
>>> When installing RedHat ES 3.0 here are the disk space usage after 
>>> install
>>> for Typical / Everything.
>>>
>>> MB Table
>>> - - - - - - -Typical - - - - - - - - - Everything
>>> ==============- - - -===================- - - - - / - - - - - 
>>> 1,461,040 - - - - - - - - - 4,162,096
>>
>>
>> All the below directories are install under "/".
>>
>>> /usr - - - 1,344,648 - - - - - - - - - 3,888,528
>>> /lib - - - 50,276 - - - - - - - - - 145,420
>>> /var - - - - - 30,668 - - - - - - - - - 86,092
>>> /etc - - - - - 18,000 - - - - - - - - - 23,504
>>> /sbin - - - - 11,400 - - - - - - - - - 11,872
>>> /bin - - - - - 4,900 - - - - - - - - - 5,336
>>> /root - - - - - - 528 - - - - - - - - - 604
>>> /dev - - - - - - -428 - - - - - - - - - 428
>>> /tmp - - - - - - - 40 - - - - - - - - - 44
>>> /home - - - - - - 36 - - - - - - - - - 64
>>> /opt - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - 4
>>> All others were 4 or less
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh, that's not a good example, Steve. Try giving us the output of
>> "df -h". There is no way that "/" has 4GB of stuff in it--that must
>> include all of the partitions mounted under it. "df -h" will show the
>> disk usage by filesystem/mount point. My "full install Fedora Core 1"
>> install shows:
>>
>> [root at prophead root]# df -h
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/hda1 1012M 188M 773M 20% /
>> /dev/hda2 40G 31G 7.0G 82% /images (CD-ROM images)
>> none 252M 0 252M 0% /dev/shm
>> /dev/hda7 66G 12G 51G 20% /usr (Development)
>> /dev/hda5 4.0G 806M 3.0G 22% /var
>> /dev/hda3 40G 3.3G 35G 9% /work (More develop.)
>>
>> The VAST majority of stuff ends up in /usr.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens at vitalstream.com -
>> - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
>> - -
>> - You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained. -
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: last thing question
> From:
> Rick Stevens <rstevens at vitalstream.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:13:30 -0700
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
>
> GoijI P wrote:
>
>> it was a path problem.fixed it.
>
>
> Ta DAH! He speaks!
>
>> many thanks.
>
>
> And thank you for giving us the status update. Glad you sorted it out.
>
>>> From: Rick Stevens <rstevens at vitalstream.com>
>>> Reply-To: Getting started with Red Hat Linux 
>>> <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>>> To: Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>>> Subject: Re: last thing question
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:36:57 -0700
>>>
>>> Nigel Wade wrote:
>>>
>>>> GoijI P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> or by: # cd /usr/bin # ./program-to-run
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> this is excatly what i did. i got "command not found".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you get if you run
>>>> # ls -l ./program-to-run
>>>>
>>>> I've seen a misleading 'command not found' when the command is a 
>>>> script with a '#!' first line which pointed to an executable which 
>>>> was not accessible. Could this be the case here?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possible, but since I have no idea which command he was trying to run
>>> and he hasn't posted since, my guess is that he either figured it out
>>> or gave up.
>>>
>>> Can't do any more without more info. My guess is that since he could
>>> run the program when on a console but not via telnet, he had a path
>>> problem.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens at vitalstream.com -
>>> - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
>>> - -
>>> - "If you can't fix it...duct tape it!" - Tim Allen -
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! 
>> http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: ES 3.0 Typical/Everything Disk Space Info
> From:
> Rick Stevens <rstevens at vitalstream.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:15:21 -0700
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
>
> Rick Stevens wrote:
>
>> Carr, Steve M CW4 FL-ARNG wrote:
>>
>>> Rick, picking automatic partitioning and load everything 
>>> automatically loads
>>> everything under the "/ (root)" directory. 
>>
>>
>>
>> Everything is ALWAYS under the "/" directory (that's why it's called
>> "root" :-) ). The question is whether things such as "/usr" are simple
>> directories or mountpoints where other filesystems are mounted. In my
>> example at the bottom of this post, you can see that /usr, /var, /images
>> and /work are separate filesystems. A similar table for the running
>> system to yours would show:
>>
>> [root at prophead /]# du -hs
>> 52G .
>>
>> [root at prophead /]# du -hs *
>> 5.5M bin
>> 4.5M boot
>> 428K dev
>> 42M etc
>> 0 home (symlink to /usr/home)
>> 35G images
>> 85M lib
>> 16K lost+found
>> 4.0K misc
>> 20K mnt
>> 4.0K oldsys
>> 4.0K opt
>> 515M proc
>> 1.9M root
>> 17M sbin
>> 52K tftpboot
>> 684K tmp
>> 12G usr
>> 775M var
>> 3.3G work
>>
>> So one would think 52G is in "/", when in reality, only 773M is actually
>> in "/" (see my table below). The rest is in filesystems MOUNTED under
>> "/". This is why you must be really clear about the differences between
>> directories and filesystems.
>
>
> Oops! Make that '...188M is actually in "/"' (read the wrong column!)
>
>>
>>> I added another line for clarification. Thanks for pointing out the 
>>> confusion of the table. 
>>
>>
>>
>> That's my job! ;-P
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you are planning to manual configure your partitions this will 
>>>> help in
>>>> determining partition sizes.
>>>> RedHat's documentation says ("/" 350MB-5GB) and ("/var" 3GB or 
>>>> larger).
>>>>
>>>> This info was gather using Automatic Partition
>>>>
>>>> When installing RedHat ES 3.0 here are the disk space usage after 
>>>> install
>>>> for Typical / Everything.
>>>>
>>>> MB Table
>>>> - - - - - - -Typical - - - - - - - - - Everything
>>>> ==============- - - -===================- - - - - / - - - - - 
>>>> 1,461,040 - - - - - - - - - 4,162,096
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All the below directories are install under "/".
>>>
>>>> /usr - - - 1,344,648 - - - - - - - - - 3,888,528
>>>> /lib - - - 50,276 - - - - - - - - - 145,420
>>>> /var - - - - - 30,668 - - - - - - - - - 86,092
>>>> /etc - - - - - 18,000 - - - - - - - - - 23,504
>>>> /sbin - - - - 11,400 - - - - - - - - - 11,872
>>>> /bin - - - - - 4,900 - - - - - - - - - 5,336
>>>> /root - - - - - - 528 - - - - - - - - - 604
>>>> /dev - - - - - - -428 - - - - - - - - - 428
>>>> /tmp - - - - - - - 40 - - - - - - - - - 44
>>>> /home - - - - - - 36 - - - - - - - - - 64
>>>> /opt - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - 4
>>>> All others were 4 or less
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, that's not a good example, Steve. Try giving us the output of
>>> "df -h". There is no way that "/" has 4GB of stuff in it--that must
>>> include all of the partitions mounted under it. "df -h" will show the
>>> disk usage by filesystem/mount point. My "full install Fedora Core 1"
>>> install shows:
>>>
>>> [root at prophead root]# df -h
>>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>>> /dev/hda1 1012M 188M 773M 20% /
>>> /dev/hda2 40G 31G 7.0G 82% /images (CD-ROM images)
>>> none 252M 0 252M 0% /dev/shm
>>> /dev/hda7 66G 12G 51G 20% /usr (Development)
>>> /dev/hda5 4.0G 806M 3.0G 22% /var
>>> /dev/hda3 40G 3.3G 35G 9% /work (More develop.)
>>>
>>> The VAST majority of stuff ends up in /usr.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens at vitalstream.com -
>>> - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
>>> - -
>>> - You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained. -
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Redhat-install-list mailing list
>>> Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>>> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
>>> redhat-install-list-request at redhat.com
>>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> rh9 out Fedora in
> From:
> David Cartwright <Dcart44 at verizon.net>
> Date:
> Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:33:59 -0400
> To:
> redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>
> To:
> redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>
>
> I am about to go Fedora. I will be dumping rh9. I have ordered iso 
> disks from a vendor and will install on a new hard drive I am 
> installing to replace the small one currently running rh9.
> I understand Fedora is standalone but I am not sure how it compares to 
> rh9. My request via this missive is for recommendations from you out 
> there as to what I should save from the rh9 install that would be 
> useful with Fedora, if anything. I could burn all the files to cd but 
> don't feel like doing that if not productive...they will set and 
> gather dust probably and I have enough of those kind already. I do 
> still have the original rh package disks. All suggestions welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: rh9 out Fedora in
> From:
> Bob McClure Jr <robertmcclure at earthlink.net>
> Date:
> Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:42:37 -0500
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
> To:
> Getting started with Red Hat Linux <redhat-install-list at redhat.com>
>
>
>On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 11:33:59AM -0400, David Cartwright wrote:
>  
>
>>I am about to go Fedora. I will be dumping rh9. I have ordered iso disks 
>>from a vendor and will install on a new hard drive I am installing to 
>>replace the small one currently running rh9.
>>I understand Fedora is standalone but I am not sure how it compares to 
>>rh9. My request via this missive is for recommendations from you out 
>>there as to what I should save from the rh9 install that would be useful 
>>with Fedora, if anything. I could burn all the files to cd but don't 
>>feel like doing that if not productive...they will set and gather dust 
>>probably and I have enough of those kind already. I do still have the 
>>original rh package disks. All suggestions welcome.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>David
>>    
>>
>
>Well you want /home, and you probably want /etc for reference.  But I
>would copy the small disk to the large disk, make sure it works by
>itself (boots, runs), the do an upgrade by booting the CD.  Fedora
>Core 1 is precious little more than RH 10, so an upgrade is fairly
>painless.
>
>If you choose to install FC1 instead, don't restore /home until after
>the install is complete and you have created the users with the same
>UIDs as on the old drive.
>
>Cheers,
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Redhat-install-list mailing list
>Redhat-install-list at redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
>  
>
Thanks for the help. I chose to install FC1 and not upgrade rh9 to 
Fedora...seemed easiest to me. Once I figured out how to restore windows 
boot from grub dual boot (fdisk /mbr), I removed small hard drive, 
inserted large drive, booted FC1 iso's and wallah! I did not know how 
installation would differ when I booted Fedora disk without an active 
boot drive which would technically be the case if I removed the Rh9 
drive without first removing dual boot and restoring original windows 
single drive boot. Probably would not be any different but I preferred 
to go with what I was familiar with...if something went wrong with the 
installation I would not be certain the boot issue didn't contribute. 
The installation was problem free.
One quick question. Your note above suggests (my limited understanding) 
that I need simply copy one linux hard drive to a second hard drive to 
make the second usable and bootable on the same machine. Seems too simple.

Regards,
David