OSDev.org

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.

More than one (and up to four) primary partitions is perfectly possible. I don't think there is any performance issue.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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)