I am trying to do a partitionless install on an IBM Aptiva, onto a DOS
partition that is 2,000 Megabytes long. It is NOT a FAT32, it is a FAT16
partition, but the installer seems to treat is like a FAT12 partition.
First, when asking how to apportion file space, it says that the maximum
total is 115 Megabytes. If I continue anyway, it creates two files, but
the FAT entries for those files are 12 bits long, not 16. I have checked
the boot-sector, and it has all the correct data; in particular, it
says "F8" at offset 15 (hex). Also, Windows is happy to read and write
files on that partition (until the Linux installer hashes the FAT).
What is the partition type of the drive (use the linux fdisk command to find
I cannot run Linux fdisk, since I can't install Linux.
Windows fdisk calls the partition "PRI DOS". The actual byte
in the partition table is a 6.
How much free space is on the FAT partition?
The partition is empty. There are 2,000 Megabytes of free space, and the FAT
reflects this. Specifically, the partition boot track specifies: 239 (EF hex)
sectors of FAT (239 for EACH of the 2 copies); there are 64 (40 hex) sectors
per cluster; there are 32 (20 hex) sectors of root directory. The root
directory is empty (all 0's) except for a label (attributes = 28 hex). The FAT
is all 0's except for the first 2 entries (which are for clusters 0 & 1,
unused). That's for the first copy of the FAT; I haven't looked at the second
copy of the FAT, but that seems unlikely to be the problem here.
MORE: Your question prompted me to try re-formatting the partition, this time
using DOS. That changed the size of the FAT (to FB hex), and the installation
now runs. I don't understand this, because I tried it with a FAT size of 100
(hex), and it didn't work. Perhaps something else changed, but I couldn't find
anything. If you have any understanding of this problem, tell me. In any
event, thanks for your help.
What do you mean by FAT size? I'm not sure I know what that is.
One of the entries in the partition boot record is the length of (one copy of)
the FAT, in sectors. Also in the partition boot record is a FAT-type byte (at
offset 15 hex), and I assumed that the the Linux installer would look there to
decide what size FAT entries to use, but apparently it looks somewhere else.
There are various possibilities. I am curious as to where it looks to make
that decision, but it's not of any great importance, since it all works now.
For a partitionless install, the installer mounts the FAT partition using the
'vfat' option to the linux mount command. The kernel, I'm assuming, then tries
to figure out the details of the filesystem. The installer does not actually do
this, it occurs at a lower level.
I've never heard of this problem before, so I'm curious. How was the original
partition formatted? Was it a really old copy of DOS or Windows perhaps?
Actually, the partition was originally formatted by me, by hand, by editing the
relevant sectors in binary. That's why I'm curious about where the system
looks to decided what size FAT entries to use -- I'd like to understand where I
went wrong in doing the formatting. This is not enormously important, now that
it's working; I'm just curious.
Glad to hear its working.