(SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

Google · 2010-05-31 03:14:24

I am making the jump to Arch. I am taking time to think and plan out the build before I even try to install the base and everything.

I have used Ubuntu, and I even tried out Vector Linux in the past. I have read a lot about Arch, and I think it sounds light and that is what I want. I want to build my own Linux environment starting from the base up-- without any extra clutter or baggage. I currently have lubuntu installed on my netbook, which is basically Ubuntu with the lxde windows manager. I tried out KDE and I found it to be way too bulky, and a battery hog. It was also incredibly slow on my netbook. I need some help deciding between window managers for Arch.

I love the speed of lxde and the simplicity. I like KDE's applets and widgets, but really hate the bulkiness and battery eating ability it seems to have.

Is the KDEmod an improvement in those areas of KDE which I despise? Or, should I just stick with lxde?

I have been thinking about using the 64 bit version instead of the 32 bit version. I have 3 gigabytes of RAM, and plenty HDD space to spare (a SATA HD, not an SSD). I have read the documentation on the site as well as others, and think 64 bit is worth it. I can't really find any reason why one wouldn't want it. Is there some reason so many people shy away from it?

My first Arch install will be designed for my PC. Once I have been successful I will attempt to replace lubuntu on my netbook with Arch. Does anyone have experience with Arch on netbooks and have any advice?

Thanks

Last edited by Google (2010-06-03 16:00:15)

fsckd · 2010-05-31 03:23:08

Have you tried Google Chrome OS or Android? Both are lightweight Linux based systems designed for netbooks and whatever we call handhelds nowadays.

Google · 2010-05-31 03:31:19

Why yes, yes I have. I own an Android based phone and I am loving it. I have used Chrome OS, but sadly it has yet to support my netbook entirely. I will most certainly dual boot Linux and Chrome OS once Chrome supports my netbook entirely. Chrome OS for general use, and Linux for work.

As for my PC, Chrome OS works great but I really use my PC for more than lightweight work. I work in the linguistics field. I use it for corpus linguistics and computational linguistics work. Then again, I also use my laptop for work related stuff, and Chrome OS just isn't up to it (not yet!). This brings me back to dual booting Chrome OS and Linux.

Last edited by Google (2010-05-31 03:32:18)

SoleSoul · 2010-05-31 03:32:43

Hi! Welcome!
KDE in arch, even not KDEmod (which is maintained by "The Chakra Project" and not by Archlinux) is divided to many smaller packages. You can install separate packages and decide what you want and what not rather than just install the huge package group "KDE".
Since LXDE is so small, you can install them both and decide by yourself. A simple "sudo pacman -Rns LXDE" will remove LXDE and everything which was installed with it.
There are plenty of programs to accompany LXDE which could serve as a replacement to some applets. Which ones are important to you?

About 64 or 32 bit, in your case I don't see a big difference. You don't *need* 64 bit but it can be a perfect decision if you want to try it. Both are ok.

Google · 2010-05-31 03:54:42

On second thought, I think KDE's outofthebox look attracts me more than its functionality. As you said there are a lot of programs in LXDE (and elsewhere) that can replace a lot of KDE's functionality. I think it may be be best for me to stick with LXDE and change things like icons. I have seen videos on Youtube where Arch users used LXDE and changed just about everything-- so it must be possible. Is this hard to learn?

As for applets and stuff in KDE, I may be fine with something like Rainmeter (for Windows). Is there a good stable alternative in Linux?

Firepower · 2010-05-31 05:03:07

Google wrote:

On second thought, I think KDE's outofthebox look attracts me more than its functionality. As you said there are a lot of programs in LXDE (and elsewhere) that can replace a lot of KDE's functionality. I think it may be be best for me to stick with LXDE and change things like icons. I have seen videos on Youtube where Arch users used LXDE and changed just about everything-- so it must be possible. Is this hard to learn?
As for applets and stuff in KDE, I may be fine with something like Rainmeter (for Windows). Is there a good stable alternative in Linux?

Well, yeah, because Arch is so modular, it is possible to mix and match different sections of desktop environments, at the expense of cluttering up your system. And yes, it is possible to change themes and stuff on LXDe, though I do not personally use it. Oh and, the leap from Ubuntu and its derivatives to Arch is quite large, but do not let it deter you, because you, more often than not, get a system centered around your needs, and one that can be aesthetically quite stunning, yet light on resources: look at the monthly screenshots thread.

And about Rainmeter-like widgets/applets/whatchamacallits, there is,of course, conky, which is quite popular around these parts.

Hope to see you around on the Arch forums!

schen · 2010-05-31 13:35:17

Is your processor 64-bit?

Google · 2010-05-31 13:45:29

^ Yes it is, I have a dual core processor which is compatible with 64 bit.

I have decided to begin with installing Arch on a virtual machine to get a feel for it before doing it on my system.

Trial one resulted in a fairly successful run. I installed the base without any problem. I believe I installed my nvidia drivers correctly, and I had x running. I had basic lxde installed and I installed slim for a login manager. However I forgot something in the initrc file and I ended up in an infinite loop unable to return to my terminal, and all login attempts would loop me back to the login manager. I couldn't control+alt+f7 because control+alt took me out of the virtual machine. I decided to restart the whole process and this time take my time while setting up the initrc file and my daemons. I think I had slim starting on daemon before I configured it as 'exec' in the initrc file.

I have some question regarding partitioning and daemons:

Is there any good guide to how Linux partitions are set up? I used the auto partition and guessed partition sizes and types. I am too used to 'auto' partitioning and not paying attention to the low level details. I am trying to learn more about it.

I read the size of swap should equal your ram plus 25% extra overhead.

The /boot partition is used for booting the system-- but how does the size compare to others? What is a good size for this partition?

I don't understand what the '/' partition is. I believe the /home partition is where the user data goes. Is that correct? How should size be allocated to these partitions?

My setup is:
'/' = ext4
/boot = ext2
/home = etxt4
swap = swap

What processes are safe to run in the background and what order is generally preferred for booting?

I hope I am not asking too much:(

Last edited by Google (2010-05-31 13:47:09)

Firepower · 2010-05-31 13:59:40

Google wrote:

^ Yes it is, I have a dual core processor which is compatible with 64 bit.
I have decided to begin with installing Arch on a virtual machine to get a feel for it before doing it on my system.
Trial one resulted in a fairly successful run. I installed the base without any problem. I believe I installed my nvidia drivers correctly, and I had x running. I had basic lxde installed and I installed slim for a login manager. However I forgot something in the initrc file and I ended up in an infinite loop unable to return to my terminal, and all login attempts would loop me back to the login manager. I couldn't control+alt+f7 because control+alt took me out of the virtual machine. I decided to restart the whole process and this time take my time while setting up the initrc file and my daemons. I think I had slim starting on daemon before I configured it as 'exec' in the initrc file.
I have some question regarding partitioning and daemons:
Is there any good guide to how Linux partitions are set up? I used the auto partition and guessed partition sizes and types. I am too used to 'auto' partitioning and not paying attention to the low level details. I am trying to learn more about it.
I read the size of swap should equal your ram plus 25% extra overhead.
The /boot partition is used for booting the system-- but how does the size compare to others? What is a good size for this partition?
I don't understand what the '/' partition is. I believe the /home partition is where the user data goes. Is that correct? How should size be allocated to these partitions?
My setup is:
'/' = ext4
/boot = ext2
/home = etxt4
swap = swap
What processes are safe to run in the background and what order is generally preferred for booting?
I hope I am not asking too much:(

You normally need just 100 Mb for /boot. No need for anything more. As for swap, it depends on how much RAM you have/ you allocated for the VM. You do not need a swap partition if your RAM amount exceeds 2GB, though it is good practise to have one, and conversely, you might have to allocate even more than your RAM amount if you have little RAM, like 512 MB to 1 GB.

And you might want to consider 64-bit.

Google · 2010-05-31 14:57:14

Thanks, I figured out the partitioning question I had and the 'space' questions. I think I have tweaked it for my system fairly well. I guess the only thing I don't understand is the difference between ext3 and ext4. I have my home and root as ext3, but is there any advantage or disadvantages to using ext4?

schen · 2010-05-31 15:48:40

ext4 is the new linux filesystem. It's a lot faster than ext3 and has some new innovations. Some people have problems with ext4, but ext4 works for most people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4

Last edited by schen (2010-05-31 15:49:01)

Google · 2010-05-31 15:59:43

Thanks, on my real install I will use ext4 then. I have learned a lot already, and I haven't finished my trial install yet.

SoleSoul · 2010-06-01 09:13:01

I have a dual core processor which is compatible with 64 bit.

Just to remove some confusion, dual "Core" (by Intel) is 32 bit, but I guess you mean something like Core 2 Duo which is 64 bit.

Last edited by SoleSoul (2010-06-01 09:14:07)

Inxsible · 2010-06-02 00:02:23

The atom processors that are usually found in netbooks are NOT 64 bit AFAIK.

Also, if you are installing in a VM, then you I don't think you can install a 64bit OS. Other than that, there is absolutely no reason, why you would not want to install a 64bit OS.

For partitions: you do not need a /boot partition, if you are only going to have 1 linux installation. a separate boot partition (IMHO) is only useful, if you have multiple Linux installations (different flavors) using the same boot partition. When I was trying out different distros, i had a boot partition, but now that I dont have time to keep trying distros, i dont create a separate boot.
/, /home, /var and swap are the only partitions that I have. A separate /var is a good idea, because i can install a different filesystem on it. I use reiserfs on /var and /ext4 on / and /home.

The size of swap doesn't matter if you have more than 2GB. I have 4GB of RAM and so I created a swap of only 512MB and even that has never been used. So swap is just a waste of space if you have enough RAM. Again this will also depend on the software that you use...However if you want to use the suspend, then you will need swap to be atleast the size of RAM or 125% of RAM to allow for some bad sectors etc.

Good Luck with your install...on both the netbook and the main machine.

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-02 12:00:51)

Fungyo · 2010-06-02 00:33:49

I think a swap partition is needed if you wish to suspend to disk or have small amount of RAM. /boot partitions aren't needed on modern systems, with the exception of booting LVM partitions. /home partitions should always (IMO) be separate, this way your user data is safe when doing re-installs i.e. you can format / partition but not /home and all your user data plus software settings still remain intact for your new install, very handy.
There are some forum threads which show arch users methods of starting Daemons and in what order. Some come down to personal preference, while others need to be started first before another one. Some can be started in the background to help speed up boot times.

I had issues with XBMC on a 64 bit build. You will most likely need some 32 bit packages on a 64 bit build. I didn't find any real noticeable speed increases with 64 bit over 32 bit. I do find my 32 bit build seams more stable and bug free. 64 bit is needed if you have 4+GB of RAM.

As for VMs, not sure which VM you're using but I think it comes down to what your host is. If you have a 64 bit host, you can install 64 bit VMs. I have a CentOS 64bit KVM build that I can install 64 bit or 32 bit VMs.

I use EXT4 on all my partitions and quite happy with it.

Read the "Official Installation Guide" and "Unofficial Beginners' Guide" for more info.

For other light Window Managers, look at OpenBox or FluxBox. There are forum threads which list light software.

Have fun!

frigaut · 2010-06-02 02:34:38

which VM are ou using?
* nvidia drivers should not work in a VM AFAIK
* you don't (really) need swap in a VM (but you may in as your prime/host OS)
* a /boot partition may be handy (in your final/host install) if you want to use a fancy file system for /, as grub (1) may not support it.

mythus · 2010-06-02 10:41:56

Greetings,

I thought that I may go ahead and list what I use partion wise if you are still interested in possible schemes.
/swap : I have 4GB ram. While I come from the old school belief that you double your swap space based on your ram, I had quickly found out that is not needed with so much ram.. so my swap space simply equals my ram space... 4 gb. I have more than enough disk space to allow this ofcourse....

/var : I have a seperate var partition. This partition stores all of your package information which is a lot of small files. rieserfs has been proved to me to be very fast at dealing with a lot of small files and I have found that pacman, and even yaourt, flies seemingly faster having this partion set to the riserfs. It is a good isea to have around 20 GB here I believe.

/ : Root partition. I take half of the remaining disk space for this, and make it ext4. When btrfs becomes stable, who knows, I may switch to that.

/home: the remaining half, in ext4.

As for lightweight environments, there are many lol. The lightest floater I have messed with is JWM. Fluxbox, IceWM, and Pekwm are good as well. LXDE is simply openbox +pcmanfm + lxpannel and accessories. You could, in turn make an LXDE out of wm's such as pekwm, fluxbox, etc. However you may find it more rewarding to make your own environment. If you like lxde's window manager, for example, which is open box, try open box without lxde. Then add in another panel such as tint2 or the like, thundr for file management (or others like xfe), and build from there. If you like lxde but not particulary open box for whatever reason, you may like wm's like pekwm. You could even use compiz-fusion standalone with lxpanel and the like.

If you are wanting the desktop environment feel, so bling but it still be fast and light, take a look at e17. It can be eceptionally pleasing to the eye, and highly configruable with many nice gadgets. However I must warn you, some find it unstable for them. Others though find it perfectly fine and fast. YMMV.

Google · 2010-06-02 11:36:01

Thanks everyone, I think I will partition 100gb section of my PC's hard drive for Arch tonight. I thought about the setup and I am not sure if I need a separate boot partition. I was going to place the bootloader on the same partition as root, and make root ext4. Is that alright? I also have Windows 7 on this PC, and I am not sure how that will look when I start messing with the partitions. I just hope not to overwrite the wrong thing, but I think it should look something like this for Linux:

sda1: primary: root: ext4 (41gb)
sda2: primary: /var: reiserFS (9gb)
sda3: primary: swap: swap (3gb)
sda4: primary: home: ext4 (47gb)

Will this work? Does the order really play any particular role, or is there any kind of industry standard to the partition ordering?

Note:

My system also has a (250gb) Windows 7 partition, as well as a recovery partition, a hidden partition (I think it's some kind of backup recovery partition) and I have another 250gb partition for data storage (shared between all systems). I am going to cut 100gb from the Windows 7 partition and make the Arch partition from that. Any problems with this?

The last time I installed I placed the bootloader on the wrong sda and I had to find it and everything. I hope to avoid doing that this time. When the install bootloader stage begins, it asks where to install the bootloader, and it shows:

sda
sda1
sda2
sda3
sda4

Should I place it on sda1 (root) or sda?

EDIT:

This being a PC (with 3gb of ram), do I need a swap anyway? I may be able to survive without it, but I feel a little paranoid without it. I could understand if it's a laptop and hibernating, but it's a desktop. I don't think I have ever seen my ram go beyond 60% in Windows. I may have seen it go beyond when running a high end game, but that's it.

Would it be a good idea to use another partition like /tmp on reiserFS for a speed boost?

Last edited by Google (2010-06-02 11:52:05)

Inxsible · 2010-06-02 11:58:30

Google wrote:

Thanks everyone, I think I will partition 100gb section of my PC's hard drive for Arch tonight. I thought about the setup and I am not sure if I need a separate boot partition. I was going to place the bootloader on the same partition as root, and make root ext4. Is that alright? I also have Windows 7 on this PC, and I am not sure how that will look when I start messing with the partitions. I just hope not to overwrite the wrong thing, but I think it should look something like this for Linux:
sda1: primary: root: ext4 (41gb)
sda2: primary: /var: reiserFS (9gb)
sda3: primary: swap: swap (3gb)
sda4: primary: home: ext4 (47gb)
Will this work? Does the order really play any particular role, or is there any kind of industry standard to the partition ordering?
Note:
My system also has a (250gb) Windows 7 partition, as well as a recovery partition, a hidden partition (I think it's some kind of backup recovery partition) and I have another 250gb partition for data storage (shared between all systems). I am going to cut 100gb from the Windows 7 partition and make the Arch partition from that. Any problems with this?
The last time I installed I placed the bootloader on the wrong sda and I had to find it and everything. I hope to avoid doing that this time. When the install bootloader stage begins, it asks where to install the bootloader, and it shows:
sda
sda1
sda2
sda3
sda4
Should I place it on sda1 (root) or sda?

41GB for root is waaaaaay too much for root. I have a 5GB root and I still have 2.5-3GB empty. However, I always use a minimalist system. If you plan to install everything under the sun, you might need a slightly bigger / partition. But I still think 41GB is excessive. You can probably use that space to create another partition -- lets say for your music or movies etc.

I have a 80 GB HDD, so I have Windows 7 using a 30GB C drive, a 30 GB D drive (which is use to keep files that I share between Windows and Linux. and the remaining 20GB is 5GB root, 5GB home and 4 GB /var and 512 MB swap. (80GB gives you about 74-75 GB usable)

And no, there is no "industry standard".

You can put your bootloader in any number of places, but then you will have to make sure that you can get to it thru the Windows bootloader.

The easiest and the most common is to put it in "sda" (no numbers). That will place the grub in the MBR and you will see the loaders for Arch and Windows in there. You will have to uncomment the Windows entry in the /boot/grub/menu.lst file. It starts with #title Windows and is about 4-5 lines.

Also, try out some tiling window managers to get a lightweight system. I use musca and I love it. There are scores of others as well. Just search Tiling window managers in our wiki or even Googling will provide you with shitload of results.

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-02 12:04:21)

Google · 2010-06-02 12:09:05

I have a 250gb partition for music, movies, documents etc. It's NTFS I believe-- for Windows. I should still be able to access it through Linux, right?

My laptop shares Windows and Linux partitions but it's Windows XP, and I think the file system is different.

You're right about root's size. I can cut it down a lot as long as I install large applications or games to home.

I read a swap partition can be added after the system is installed. I may try to hold off on the swap until I find out if I need it or not.

Last edited by Google (2010-06-02 12:10:18)

Inxsible · 2010-06-02 12:16:05

Google wrote:

I have a 250gb partition for music, movies, documents etc. It's NTFS I believe-- for Windows. I should still be able to access it through Linux, right?
My laptop shares Windows and Linux partitions but it's Windows XP, and I think the file system is different.
You're right about root's size. I can cut it down a lot as long as I install large applications or games to home.
I read a swap partition can be added after the system is installed. I may try to hold off on the swap until I find out if I need it or not.

yes ntfs is accessible thru windows. swap will be needed if you plan to suspend your machine. I never do, so i dont create swap more than 512 mb. When I started using Arch and linux in general, there were just too many issues with suspend and hibernate. So much so that i just never used them and now i have gotten into that habit, so i dont miss it either.

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-02 12:16:19)

Google · 2010-06-02 15:44:27

I've moved out the VM environment and tried to install Arch on 100gb I freed up on my HD.

I have the live iso up and going, I started to do the partitioning section of the install and-- none of the selected partitions work and they appear strange (but the data is all fine, I can load Windows and everything is there.)

I see:

sda 465gb
sdb 0gb
sdc 0gb
sde 0gb
sdf 1gb

in the partition program, I tried to pick each one. Each has their own error. The first one, sda says "bad partition ends in final cylinder." and the sdb, sdc,sde say "bad partition, can't access" and sdf loads like a normal partition. However I looked at it, and it appears sdf is Window's boot partition.

I am re-partitioning the partitions through Windows and I will see if anything changes... does anyone know why there are so many 'partitions' considering I only have one hard drive (500gb), and from my count I have 4 actual partitions:

C Drive, Windows 250ish gb (now it's 150ish gb, because I took 100 from it for Linux)
D Drive, Storage partition 250ish gb
Hidden partition (LG Recovery) 10ishgb
Second hidden partition (I assume the boot partition) 1gb

I don't know why a 5th partition shows up during the Arch partition stage. I did have 'unallocated' space which may have shown up as one of those-- but if it was, it was not accessible. What can I do?

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9568/82447671.png

I deleted the LG Recovery partition, and I am shrinking Window's main drive's install to make more room. Is it safe to delete that other hidden partition? I hate not knowing what the heck something is on my own computer. I don't know if it was there from when I bought the PC, or after I installed Windows 7...

edit2:

I took a leap of faith and deleted the mystery partition as well, Windows still loads.

I now have only c and d drive's partitions. This gives me two partitions for linux? Will this still work with the setup I planned?

sda1: primary: root: ext4 (25gb)
sda2: primary: /var: reiserFS (9gb)
sda3: primary: /tmp: reiserFS (2gb)
sda4: primary: home: ext4 (64gb)

Do I have to use logical partitions for 2 of them? I need to read about logical partitions now.

Last edited by Google (2010-06-02 17:04:32)

Inxsible · 2010-06-02 20:50:56

No don't delete the smaller partition. That's where the System REsources lie for the Windows 7. I installed Windows 7 on my machine and it too automatically creates a small partition (although mine was 100 MB) to keep the System Resources files. I think that would be the same in your case if you Windows 7 came as OEM.

Recovery partitions are useful if you don't have the Windows installation CD/DVD. But since you have already gotten rid of them, you will have more space to store data

Those 0gb partitions seem strange. What partitioner did you use? Try using GParted Live. It gives a nice GUI. Although the latest version gave me a lot of grief in that after burning the iso on a CD, it just wouldn't boot on my machine. I even tried usb booting the GParted. No dice !!

In the end I just used the partitioner within the Arch installer. Its pretty nifty, but you just have to be careful using it, since you dont have any fancy GUI to visually display what drive you are making changes too. You have to make sure you are selecting the correct drive before applying changes.

Finally, you can only have a MAX of 4 Primary partitions on a hard drive. So yes, you will have to create Logical partitions if you intend to create separate partitions for /var /tmp /home and /root and swap.Don't forget the Windows partitions that might be on the same drive. So all in all if Windows has 2 primary partitions, you can have another primary and then an extended partition which can contain any number of logical partitions.

I have 3 Windows partitions including a System Resources partition (again a primary) -- So I could create only one extended partition and then create logical partitions for / /home /var and swap. Linux works well from logical partitions. Windows does not and needs a primary partition atleast for the C: drive where the Windows install is normally

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-02 20:53:22)

Google · 2010-06-03 03:05:21

That sounds scary, I deleted the Windows 7 resources partition and everything is still working fine. I ran some diagnostic software and tried to see if something was amiss, but everything seems to be working the same as before.

After work I will see if the partition problem was fixed in the Arch installer. I was using the partition manager that is in the installer. It was giving me those strange partition results and strange partition sizes. I am running the iso from a USB that I 'burned' using the Linux method. I used my netbook's Linux to setup the flash usb drive. I couldn't run the 64 bit version from the USB, it was giving me strange errors concerning the USB drive and not being able to do something. However the 32 bit version ran seemingly flawless. I installed the core-dual (32/64) iso on the flash drive. The errors didn't concern the CPU, they seemed to be concerning the flash drive and not being able to do something, and it kept rolling back-- eventually it stopped all together and left me with a command prompt. The errors were the same as this user posted here.

I have deleted 2 primaries and now I am left with Drive C and D (NTFS from Windows 7) and I have made 100gb after drive C and D for the partitioning of Linux. I will attempt to make the overall partitioning look like this:

sda1: primary: Drive C: NTFS: (Windows 7)
sda2: primary: Drive D: NTFS: Storage Partition
sda3: primary: root: ext4 (25gb)
sda4: primary: home: ext4 (64gb)
sda5: logical: /tmp: reiserFS (2gb)
sda6: logical: /var: reiserFS (9gb)

Bootloader will go on the MBR, sda~

Should this theoretically work?

Last edited by Google (2010-06-03 03:13:01)

Fungyo · 2010-06-03 03:50:47

Google wrote:

Should this theoretically work?

Not quite...
You can only have 4 Primary partitions and one of those primary partitions must hold the logical partitions.
So it would look more like:
sda1: primary: Drive C: NTFS: (Windows 7)
sda2: primary: Drive D: NTFS: Storage Partition
sda5: Extended
sda6: logical: /: ext4 (25gb)
sda7: logical: /home: ext4 (64gb)
sda8: logical: /tmp: reiserFS (2gb)
sda9: logical: /var: reiserFS (9gb)

I have split my filesystem up even more then most do. not saying you will want a setup like this but you can use it as a guide to indicate where space is used:
I'm only showing used space here:
/ 274M
/opt 1.8G
/usr 7.8G
/var 5.0G
/boot 19M
/home <-- this really depends on what personal files you have i.e. movies, music, iso's, VMs etc. I've used a ton of space

I have installed many packages, including games from the repositories and I don't clear my pacman cache (can't remember doing it anyways). If I was to clear the pacman cache /var usage would be much smaller.

~]$ du -h /var/cache/pacman/pkg/
4.6G    /var/cache/pacman/pkg/

my /tmp directory has used 268K. I've been running for 6 days without reboot. I really don't know how much you would need for /tmp

I personally think your partition sizes are about right

Order doesn't matter AFAIK, however if later you decide to increase/decrease parttion sizes, then the order can make a difference.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-05-31 03:14:24

(SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#2 2010-05-31 03:23:08

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#3 2010-05-31 03:31:19

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#4 2010-05-31 03:32:43

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#5 2010-05-31 03:54:42

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#6 2010-05-31 05:03:07

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#7 2010-05-31 13:35:17

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#8 2010-05-31 13:45:29

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#9 2010-05-31 13:59:40

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#10 2010-05-31 14:57:14

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#11 2010-05-31 15:48:40

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#12 2010-05-31 15:59:43

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#13 2010-06-01 09:13:01

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#14 2010-06-02 00:02:23

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#15 2010-06-02 00:33:49

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#16 2010-06-02 02:34:38

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#17 2010-06-02 10:41:56

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#18 2010-06-02 11:36:01

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#19 2010-06-02 11:58:30

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#20 2010-06-02 12:09:05

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#21 2010-06-02 12:16:05

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#22 2010-06-02 15:44:27

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#23 2010-06-02 20:50:56

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#24 2010-06-03 03:05:21

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

#25 2010-06-03 03:50:47

Re: (SOLVED) Setting up my first Arch install! (Almost there!!!)

Board footer