Re: subscribe
I though 85 was the older ext (before ext2) filesystem type.
and 5 was the extended partition block thing that allowed
more than 4 partitions by adding a second (extended)
partition table into which logical partitions of whatever
type were placed? maybe naming the older filesystem type
extended was an unfortunate choice because the partition
table now has 5 (dos extended partition) that is a
box for holding additional partitions > 4 and 85 which
is the linux extended filesystem partition type.
fuzzy
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Rick Jones wrote:
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:49:29 -0500
> From: Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net>
> To: Sten Anderson <sten@bergsoe.k-net.dk>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: subscribe
> Resent-Date: 17 Jan 1998 01:18:57 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient.list.not.shown:;
>
> Sten Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net> 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?
>
> You got me. Could it be a difference in the way the boot sector and
> partition table are constructed and read? There's a problem creating
> DOS 6x partitions with Linux fdisk, although Linux is more versitile, I
> would think it needs it's own partition info to work correctly, unless
> it's umsdos.
>
> > 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
> > partition).
>
> As I saud, it was a while ago. When I was messing with using lilo to
> boot multi-os's, like 2 years ago. I remember an issue with extended
> partitions which is probably a given that logical partitions is meant
> since they go hand in hand.
>
> Seems to me that DOS fdisk wouldn't make the linux partition bootable if
> it wasn't a primary partition and it also wouldn't recognise the
> bootable flag set by Linux fdisk. Something like that.
>
> > 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
> > for me!).
>
> That's the bottom line. If it works, and you don't get filesystem
> contamination, go with it.
>
> > 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.
>
> I understand this. I use a primary DOS (VFAT), primary Linux, and
> extended Linux, not DOS, if I need an extended partition. So I've never
> thought of using Linux on a DOS partition, other than umsdos, and have
> no idea if it's good for another use or not so I asked.
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
> Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
>
>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: