SuSE 9.2 installation, partitioning problem.

mkk · Jan 31, 2005, 07:04 PM

I thought I'd give SuSE a try after having heard much good about its user friendliness. My previous experiences with Linux are limited to having tried some distribution briefly once every year or two, oftenly getting annoyed already during the installation procedure. Like this time when the SuSE installation just won't accept to be installed on an existing partition on the beginning of a drive.

When selecting only this first partition the installation routine complains that I have to select the second partition also. For some reason it seems like it's not possible to install on the first partition of a drive without also allowing SuSE to maul the contents of any other partitions on the same drive. Like I said it's certainly not the first time I've seen nuttiness in a Linux installation routine, but to see this kind of thing in 2005 is aggravating.

There has to be a way around it, right?

UberLord · Jan 31, 2005, 09:53 PM

It may be required that you need at least two partitions - 1 for root partition and 1 for swap
Personally I use 4 (/boot /home / & swap)

mkk · Feb 1, 2005, 07:16 PM

It might very well need or at least recommend making more partitions than one at a later stage, but this is earlier than that. The installation routine complains that in order to select a partition for SuSE one also have to select all partitions with a higher number. Since I want to install using the space of the first existing partition it won't allow me to proceed unless I mark all of the drive for SuSE. I guess I'll just wait until I get me a fourth harddrive.

redsolar · Feb 1, 2005, 11:43 PM

Is the space you are referring to "unpartitioned"? This is what it has to be in order for you to be able to install it. You can not install SuSE 9.2 onto a partitioned/formatted/empty(on Windows partition) space. The space has to show as "Unallocated" in Windows Disk Manager.

mkk · Feb 2, 2005, 04:36 AM

Ah, I'll try deleting the first partition to see if it helps installing later, although the installation doesn't specifically complain about that. Thanks for the idea.

Jan 31, 2005, 07:04 PM	#1
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,384 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	SuSE 9.2 installation, partitioning problem. I thought I'd give SuSE a try after having heard much good about its user friendliness. My previous experiences with Linux are limited to having tried some distribution briefly once every year or two, oftenly getting annoyed already during the installation procedure. Like this time when the SuSE installation just won't accept to be installed on an existing partition on the beginning of a drive. When selecting only this first partition the installation routine complains that I have to select the second partition also. For some reason it seems like it's not possible to install on the first partition of a drive without also allowing SuSE to maul the contents of any other partitions on the same drive. Like I said it's certainly not the first time I've seen nuttiness in a Linux installation routine, but to see this kind of thing in 2005 is aggravating. There has to be a way around it, right?

Jan 31, 2005, 09:53 PM	#2
UberLord A Legend in Underwear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unknown Posts: 5,255 Rep Power: 70	It may be required that you need at least two partitions - 1 for root partition and 1 for swap Personally I use 4 (/boot /home / & swap) __________________ Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout) Read my blog "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Feb 1, 2005, 11:43 PM	#4
redsolar Off duty Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Las Vegas, USA Posts: 1,242 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Is the space you are referring to "unpartitioned"? This is what it has to be in order for you to be able to install it. You can not install SuSE 9.2 onto a partitioned/formatted/empty(on Windows partition) space. The space has to show as "Unallocated" in Windows Disk Manager. __________________ Real_Men_Do_Not_Use_Space_Bar Main rig: Intel Core i7 930 @ 4.0 Ghz \| Corsair H50 Push/Pull \| 12GB OCZ DDR3 \| ASUS Radeon HD 5850 \| 3x 1TB Samsung F3 RAID5 on Dell PERC 5i SAS + 1TB Hitachi \| MSI X58 Pro-e \| 850W Antec Truepower Quattro \| RocketFish by Lian Li Full Tower Case \| Gateway XHD3000 30" LCD \| Dell 2408WFP 24" LCD \| Dell 2407WFP 24" LCD \| Logitech Z-5500 Speakers \| Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Laptop: Samsung x360-34P \| Core 2 Duo SU9400 1.4 GHz \| 4GB DDR3 \| 128GB Samsung SSD \| Intel 4500M w/ HDMI \| WiFi \| Bluetooth \| 13.3" WLED 1280x800 \| Windows 7 Professional x64

Feb 1, 2005, 07:16 PM	Thread Starter #3
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,384 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	It might very well need or at least recommend making more partitions than one at a later stage, but this is earlier than that. The installation routine complains that in order to select a partition for SuSE one also have to select all partitions with a higher number. Since I want to install using the space of the first existing partition it won't allow me to proceed unless I mark all of the drive for SuSE. I guess I'll just wait until I get me a fourth harddrive.

Feb 2, 2005, 04:36 AM	Thread Starter #5
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,384 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	Ah, I'll try deleting the first partition to see if it helps installing later, although the installation doesn't specifically complain about that. Thanks for the idea.