Question

[Karl Larsen]

Alexandra Zaharia wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Gernot Hassenpflug
> <aikishugyo at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>  I suggest making the swap partition a primary one [...]
>>     
>
> I'm really curious: why would you want to do that? I mean, why use up
> a handy primary partition just for swap? I always have my swap
> partition inside the extended one. My lack of understanding regarding
> your suggestion comes from that fact that, being given a hard disk,
> one is allowed to have up to 4 partitions on it: 3 primary and a 4th
> one extended - which can keep more logical partitions inside. Linux is
> a 'good guy' and accepts being installed onto a logical partition, but
> other operating systems aren't: FreeBSD for sure and maybe Vista too
> (not sure, the last Windows version I'm acquainted with is XP).
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Gernot Hassenpflug
> <aikishugyo at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>  I generally leave one partition free
>>  between other used partititions so that repartitioning and/or moving
>>  partitions is slightly easier.
>>     
>
> ...My point exactly. So keeping this in mind what's wrong with a
> scheme such as the one below for the OP's concrete partitioning need?
>
> PP = primary partition
> EP = extended partition
>
> [ ---- PP1: Vista OS ---- ][ ---- PP2: Vista/Linux storage ---- ][
> ---- PP3 /boot---- ][ -------- EP: swap+Linux+... -------- ]
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alex.
>
>   
    There is no difference in performance whether the partition is 
primary or extended and the reason for primary and extended goes back to 
the old DOS days. How many partitions do you want on your 40 MB hard 
drive :-)

    Back then 4 was enough. But then hard drives got bigger and someone 
invented the extended partition.

Karl


-- 

	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
   PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C  ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7