HDD partitioning question

All off topic discussions go here. Everything from the funny thing your cat did to your favorite tv shows. Non-programming computer questions are ok too.
Post Reply
User avatar
ManOfSteel
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:00 am

HDD partitioning question

Post by ManOfSteel »

Hello,
I would like to partition a 80GB HDD into three different-size partitions. I will never need to repartition it in any other way.
My question is: can I partition it into three primary partitions or is it necessary to have extended and/or logical partitions. Will there be any difference (eg: in performance) if I choose either ways?
Thank you in advance.
User avatar
Solar
Member
Member
Posts: 7615
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Solar »

More than one (and up to four) primary partitions is perfectly possible. I don't think there is any performance issue.
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Tyler
Member
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:37 am
Location: York, England

Post by Tyler »

At most u save a couple sectors by using all primaries... as long as the Operating System can recognise numerous primaries. I know it is standard in Forensics to expect a single Primary followed by extended and that is how DOS partitions. This is not necesary though.
User avatar
Candy
Member
Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Eindhoven

Post by Candy »

Solar wrote:More than one (and up to four) primary partitions is perfectly possible. I don't think there is any performance issue.
Older versions of windows do screw up if you have more than two, so I would take that into consideration.
User avatar
ManOfSteel
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:00 am

Post by ManOfSteel »

Ok, thanks. I have one more question: is disk access faster in the first partitions (1st partition faster than the 2nd, 2nd faster than the 3rd)?

Older versions of windows do screw up if you have more than two, so I would take that into consideration.
At least Win98SE and up seem to support it.
User avatar
Candy
Member
Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Eindhoven

Post by Candy »

ManOfSteel wrote:Ok, thanks. I have one more question: is disk access faster in the first partitions (1st partition faster than the 2nd, 2nd faster than the 3rd)?

Older versions of windows do screw up if you have more than two, so I would take that into consideration.
At least Win98SE and up seem to support it.
Last Windows I tried it with that failed was either 95 or 98FE, so that would explain. Think it was 95 though.

The partitions are quicker if they're on the outer side of the disk in terms of physical location, but I really doubt that has much relation with the virtual layout. I would guess that they put sector 0-low at the outer side and the highest in the middle. That would mean that the first physical partition (in terms of sector location) would be the fastest, but only for sequential access speed and throughput. Seek times don't improve since the entire disk still rotates the same speed (you just get more sectors per rotation since the distance is bigger).
User avatar
ManOfSteel
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:00 am

Post by ManOfSteel »

Last Windows I tried it with that failed was either 95 or 98FE, so that would explain. Think it was 95 though.
What exactly happened? Did you experience data loss or something? When did you discover it was not working?
User avatar
Candy
Member
Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Eindhoven

Post by Candy »

ManOfSteel wrote:
Last Windows I tried it with that failed was either 95 or 98FE, so that would explain. Think it was 95 though.
What exactly happened? Did you experience data loss or something? When did you discover it was not working?
Well... that was my first excursion into Linux and I repartitioned the disk into 3 main partitions (3x FAT, one for win95, one for 98beta iirc and one for data, plus an extended for linux + linux swap). I found out that Windows didn't like it when I tried to boot it, it just hung. Removing both linux + one primary and changing them to all "secondary" fixed it.
User avatar
ManOfSteel
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:00 am

Post by ManOfSteel »

Ok, I'll take that into consideration.

I was told I have to install the motherboard (Intel) drivers. What are those drivers for? Would any hardware (like the new HDD) malfunction if they weren't installed? I have the CDs, it's not the problem, I'm just curious.
P.S.: if that's important, the computer has a PIV.
User avatar
Combuster
Member
Member
Posts: 9301
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:45 am
Libera.chat IRC: [com]buster
Location: On the balcony, where I can actually keep 1½m distance
Contact:

Post by Combuster »

Usually, mobo software is meant for:
- onboard devices (sound chips, network, SATA, ...)
- monitoring programs (temperature, frequencies, fan speeds etc)

Without those drivers, the non-essential hardware might not function. Your harddisk should work fine, although it may be slower than you would expect, just like your NVidia/ATI card should work ok without having the drivers installed - they're just a lot slower. (The reason for this is that the drivers also exist in the BIOS in some form)
"Certainly avoid yourself. He is a newbie and might not realize it. You'll hate his code deeply a few years down the road." - Sortie
[ My OS ] [ VDisk/SFS ]
Post Reply