Bug#237534: inst report: lots of partman and LVM issues
On Monday 15 March 2004 20:20, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On 15.III.2004 at 19:58 Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 15 March 2004 17:49, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > On 11.III.2004 at 23:28 Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > > The automatically partitinoner made good default choices, but I don't
> > > > like that it decided to use logical partitions. If it creates 4 or
> > > > less partitions, I think only primary partitions should be used.
> > > > Instead, it created:
> > > >
> > > > #1 primary root
> > > > #5 logical swap
> > > > #6 logical /home
> > >
> > > Do everybody agree about this?
> > What are the reasons for primary and against logical partitions?
> The reason for logical against primary is that the partition table is
> easier to be changed further.
> The reason for primary against logical is that the numbers of the
> primary partitions do not change.
> I prefer logical partitions but I am not too much persuaded of this.
I have always found that linux keeps perfect track of logical partitions even
if they are moved around; fstab is even updated automatically. This goes for
i386 ext2/ext3; I don't know about others.
I would say logical, mostly because it allows for more that 4 partitions on
larger disks (separate /usr, /usr/local, /tmp, ...) and keeps the primary
partitions free for other operating systems.
Personally I only have /boot on primary on one of my systems. (But I am
nowhere near a guru on this subject ;-)