PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] how to upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04 ?



AM_SOS
May 27th, 2010, 04:16 PM
hi all,

i would like to upgrade my current installation of U 9.10 to 10.04 LTS.
although i have an installation CD, i discovered recently that i will need what is called an "alternate install" CD.
can someone please tell me where i can get download on the ubuntu page? the downloads section doesn't seem to be working.

is there some other way in which i can upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04 ?

should i instead use manual partition to install 10.04 on the current 9.04 partition ?

should i keep the file system as ext 3 or ext 4 ?

thanks !

WinRiddance
May 27th, 2010, 04:51 PM
hi all,

i would like to upgrade my current installation of U 9.10 to 10.04 LTS.
although i have an installation CD, i discovered recently that i will need what is called an "alternate install" CD.
can someone please tell me where i can get download on the ubuntu page? the downloads section doesn't seem to be working.

is there some other way in which i can upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04 ?

should i instead use manual partition to install 10.04 on the current 9.04 partition ?

should i keep the file system as ext 3 or ext 4 ?

thanks !

As far as I know the "alternate" CD is also the text based installation CD that can be downloaded directly from ubuntu.com but why the downloads won't work is beyond me. Never seen that happen before.

Also, it is highly recommended that you make use of the ext4 file system since that's become the standard since version 9.10 Karmic. From what I'm reading here, what you ought to do is backup your entire home/user folder to a safe location, perhaps a USB stick with admin privileges or another partition on your hard disk. Then I'd go ahead and reformat that entire partition (with your old Ubuntu) from scratch with ext4 and I'd also create a swap partition around 4 GB in size if your machine is a bit older.

I don't know why you'd have to use an alternate CD for your installation if you didn't have to do that with Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty or 9.10 Karmic. If you had one of those installed from a regular LiveCD then I don't see any reason what that shouldn't work this time around ...
Good luck.

dE_logics
May 27th, 2010, 04:57 PM
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade in terminal.

kansasnoob
May 27th, 2010, 04:58 PM
should i instead use manual partition to install 10.04 on the current 9.04 partition ?

Do you currently have a dual-boot of 9.04 and 9.10?

WinRiddance
May 27th, 2010, 05:02 PM
If I understood the initial post correctly Ubuntu has not been installed yet. The questions had to do with the proper or best installation method before getting started. The sudo command ...

sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
... will to my knowledge NOT upgrade the partition from ext3 to ext4 which is highly recommended. That's why I mentioned just reformatting the existing Ubuntu partition after making a backup of the current user files. Ah well ...

AM_SOS
May 27th, 2010, 09:03 PM
1- i use dual boot and run XP along with ubuntu

2- due to some construction work in this area, i am not confident of the internet update from 9.10 to 10.04. this option is of course the recommended one and upgrades 9.10 directly to 10.04 over the internet.

3- i checked in GPart and unfortunately my FS is still ext 3. so how do i ensure that it is made ext 4 this time ? i think it should be easy with manual partitioning but what happens if i use the automatic installation during the installations ?

4- is it a good idea to format the current 9.10 partition ( which is located within the E: drive of XP ) and install 10.04 over this using the normal installation CD ?

my computer ( toshiba A200) is 2.5 yrs old.

thanks!

kansasnoob
May 28th, 2010, 02:13 PM
Well, what confused me was you saying:


is there some other way in which i can upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04 ?

should i instead use manual partition to install 10.04 on the current 9.04 partition ?

See where you said 9.10 to 10.04 but later mention 9.04?

I'd kind of like to see the output of the Boot Info Script before I make any recommendations:

http://bootinfoscript.sourceforge.net/

Regarding ext4:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidLynx/ReleaseNotes#Performance%20regressions%20with%20ex t4%20under%20certain%20workloads


Performance regressions with ext4 under certain workloads

The default file system for installations of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is ext4, the latest version in the popular series of Linux extended file systems. ext4 includes a number of performance tuning changes relative to previous versions such as ext3, the file system used by default up to Ubuntu 9.04. These generally produce improvements, but some particular workloads are known to be significantly slower when using ext4 than when using ext3. If you have performance-sensitive applications, we recommend that you run benchmarks using multiple file systems in your environment and select the most appropriate.

In particular, the dpkg package manager is known to run significantly slower on ext4, causing installations using the server or alternate install CD to take on the order of twice as long as before. ext4 does not guarantee atomic renames of new files over existing files in the event of a power failure shortly after the rename, and so dpkg needs to force the contents of the new file out to disk before renaming it in order to avoid leaving corrupt zero-length files after power failures. This operation involves waiting for the disk significantly more than it strictly needs to, and so degrades performance. If fast package management operations are most important to you, then you should use ext3 instead. (570805)

The simplest way to select a different file system such as ext3 at installation time is to add the partman/default_filesystem=ext3 boot parameter when starting the installer. If you are deploying Ubuntu automatically using Kickstart or preseeding, then you can set a different file system in the partitioning recipe instead.

I still use ext3 :)

I'm waiting for btrfs:

http://digitizor.com/2010/05/15/breaking-news-btrfs-might-be-the-default-file-system-in-ubuntu-10-10/

kansasnoob
May 28th, 2010, 02:16 PM
If you choose to upgrade be sure to dodge this bullet:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/576724

It's almost never a good idea to install grub to a pbr rather than an mbr.

AM_SOS
May 28th, 2010, 07:38 PM
hi kansasnoob,
thanks a lot for the installation tip !
frankly, all this is a little difficult for me to grasp, let alone to implement while installation. although i do think that grub is what allows me to select between XP or ubuntu at startup.
so let me go ahead and ask you to please point to a link or message me possible problems that i might have to deal with while installing 10.04 .
btw, i think that rather than upgrading to 10.04 from the update manager, i will instead boot from the 10.04 live CD and use manual partition to make a fresh install over the existing 9.10 install .
thanks !

kansasnoob
May 28th, 2010, 08:59 PM
Partly in response to your PM to me:


thanks kansasnoob for alerting me of the cons of ext 4.
you are right about the confusion which was inadvertently caused by a typo error on my part. sorry about that..

as you would have gathered by now, i am not an expert when it comes to the innards of the ubuntu OS.
someone else on the pages of this forum told me that it would not be possible to upgrade over the internet using update manager since my current install of 9.10 is ext 3. he suggested a fresh install using the live CD.

btw, do you think it would be a good idea to install 10.04 with ext 3 and not ext 4 ? basically, i use the ubuntu installation for basic stuff such as watching movies, listening to music, surfing the net, and opening and exchanging data from the XP drives.

although i have had no serious problems with ubuntu (since i started out with 8.10) this time i am feeling a little anxious while preparing to upgrade.

thanks !

First of all, if 9.10 is running OK please be patient :)

If it's not running well I would not even consider an upgrade to 10.04. Upgrades seem to work well if the OS being upgraded is working well to begin with, not so much if the OS being upgraded already has problems.

Whether you use ext3 or ext4 is up to you. I prefer ext3 and I've tried both. I believe btrfs should be great! Maybe we'll see it in 10.10, maybe not :confused:

So, what's the burning need to upgrade from Karmic to Lucid?

kansasnoob
May 28th, 2010, 09:13 PM
If you want me to make more suggestions about upgrading run this command:


sudo fdisk -l

BTW that's a lower case L. Then look at the output, example:


lance@lance-desktop:~$ sudo fdisk -l
[sudo] password for lance:

Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x000a6391

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 2610 20964793+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 2611 5219 20956792+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 5220 11693 52002405 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 31366 60801 236444639+ 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 39292 45992 53825751 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 45993 52514 52387933+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 52515 59192 53641003+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda8 59193 60495 10466316 83 Linux
/dev/sda9 60496 60801 2457913+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda10 36642 39291 21286093+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda11 33998 36641 21237898+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda12 31366 33997 21141508+ 83 Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order

Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0001cc7e

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 1 2646 21253963+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sdb2 2647 3680 8305605 83 Linux
/dev/sdb3 3681 4708 8257410 83 Linux
/dev/sdb4 4709 9729 40331182+ 5 Extended
/dev/sdb5 9449 9729 2257132+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sdb6 4709 7078 19036962 83 Linux
/dev/sdb7 7079 9448 19036993+ 83 Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order


You can see that I've highlighted the drive designations in red and you'll notice that fdisk ends with, "Partition table entries are not in disk order" so depending on what that shows run:


sudo parted /dev/sdX print

Of course X must be replaced by the proper drive designation.

Example:


lance@lance-desktop:~$ sudo parted /dev/sda print
Model: ATA WDC WD5000AAKS-0 (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 500GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 21.5GB 21.5GB primary ext3 boot
2 21.5GB 42.9GB 21.5GB primary ext3
3 42.9GB 96.2GB 53.3GB primary ext3
4 258GB 500GB 242GB extended
12 258GB 280GB 21.6GB logical ext2
11 280GB 301GB 21.7GB logical ext2
10 301GB 323GB 21.8GB logical ext3
5 323GB 378GB 55.1GB logical ext3
6 378GB 432GB 53.6GB logical ext3
7 432GB 487GB 54.9GB logical ext3
8 487GB 498GB 10.7GB logical ext3
9 498GB 500GB 2517MB logical linux-swap(v1)

lance@lance-desktop:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 21.8GB 21.8GB primary ntfs
2 21.8GB 30.3GB 8505MB primary ext3
3 30.3GB 38.7GB 8456MB primary ext3
4 38.7GB 80.0GB 41.3GB extended
6 38.7GB 58.2GB 19.5GB logical ext3
7 58.2GB 77.7GB 19.5GB logical ext3
5 77.7GB 80.0GB 2311MB logical linux-swap(v1)

AM_SOS
May 31st, 2010, 09:22 AM
hi !
well actually 9.10 is running pretty smooth and i quite like the visual look.
also tried out the 10.04 live CD and not sure where all those much talked about visual improvements are :(

so why do i want to upgrade ? see i want to keep in touch with the updates and it seems that updates for the non LTS versions are discontinued after 1 yr of release..
another thing i had noticed with ubuntu / xp is that the OS tends to run smooth if they are kept fully updated.

BUT i am becoming quite interested in the LTS releases. for the simply reason that i won't be able to find the time to keep updating the OS every 6 months and the risks that are attendant in this process. so seriously thinking of sticking to the LTS release !

basically, i do movies, music, internet, and of course virus cleaning / prevention usuing ubuntu.
so am still not sure if e.g. all those codecs (or whatever) will keep updating in the internet, movie players etc. if i stick to LTS..

thanks again !

PS- will run the tests you asked for in a day or two, if that's ok with you. i appreciate the time you are taking out !

AM_SOS
May 31st, 2010, 08:59 PM
hi !

below are the results of the tests that you wanted me to run. as you can see i never got the message - "partitions table entries are not in disk order".
however, i went ahead and the results are displayed below in the order you mentioned in your last mail.

for the first i used " sudo fdisk -l ". the result is -


Disk /dev/sda: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xd1d0a7d2

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 3187 25599546 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda2 3188 14593 91618695 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/sda5 3188 7011 30716248+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda6 7012 11854 38901366 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda7 11855 14286 19535008+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda8 14287 14593 2465946 82 Linux swap / Solaris



for the second, i used " sudo parted /dev/sda print ". the result is -


Model: ATA TOSHIBA MK1237GS (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 120GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 26.2GB 26.2GB primary ntfs boot
2 26.2GB 120GB 93.8GB extended lba
5 26.2GB 57.7GB 31.5GB logical ntfs
6 57.7GB 97.5GB 39.8GB logical ntfs
7 97.5GB 118GB 20.0GB logical ext3
8 118GB 120GB 2525MB logical linux-swap(v1)

so hope this provides you the information you wanted first,
awaiting your respons,
thanks !

kansasnoob
May 31st, 2010, 09:22 PM
It may be tomorrow before I have time to really look at this. I'm dealing with sick animals right now and I'd have trouble spelling my own name.