Rick Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> You're 100% right. I would, however, assume it means a Linux extended
> (type 85) partition not a DOS extended partition (type 5).
Now I am confused. What is the difference?
> Just a heads up, since I can't find the doc I read it in, that I read
> someplace, long time ago, might not even apply any more, that it isn't a
> good idea to make your root file system an extended partition. I
> assumed this refered to extended partitions not being bootable, but I'm
> fuzzy on the subject. Evidently fuzzy on a lot of things today.
When you say "make root FS an extended partition" you really mean a
logical partition dont you? (You cannot put a filesystem on an extended
I also vaguely remember debates on this issue. IIRC the conclusion was
that to Linux there is no difference. All Linux needs to know is where
the partitions begins and ends. The distinction between logical and
physical partitions only matters to the bootloader (and hey, it works
There is an issue on the bootable thing though. A physical partition
can be maded bootable, but not a logical partion. In that case you
need to use the bootsector for the extended partition.
> I don't understand why anybody would want to put a *Linux* *primary*
> partition inside a *DOS* *extended* partition anyway. The idea sends me
> some real negitive vibs. Maybe totally unfounded.
> If there's some advantage to this could somebody let me know what it
> is? I may find a need for a similar setup in the future.
The only reason to use extended partitions is that most OS's don't
like more than 4 partitions. Like I said above, Linux doesn't care if
the partitions are logical or physical.
- Sten Anderson
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .