Re: partition table numberings
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 Mar 2005 4:55 pm, you wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> > /dev/hda1 1 18 144553+ 83 Linux
>
> assuming hda is your / partition, why isn't it set to "bootable"
> - some bootloaders care .. most dont ..
>
I don't know. It's been working even without the flag set to "bootable".
And I use only grub as the bootloader.
> > /dev/hda2 * 19 444 3421845 b W95 FAT32
>
> i assume you install all windoze apps into D: as oppsed to C:
> ( or did all that change now that the 2nd partition can be C: )
>
I have only one Windows drive i.e. mapped to E: and that is just to upgrade
the firmware and do some program checks that I code in Python for
compatibility with Windows
> > /dev/hda3 445 3648 25736130 5 Extended
> > /dev/hda5 445 507 506016 82 Linux swap
>
> why ... do you expect lots of swap ??
>
The partition table that I posted is of my laptop. What I understand is that
while hibernating the system the os saves the image into the swap partition.
I had some problems earlier with hibernation when I had only one swap
partition, that is why I made room for another 1.5GB swap partition.
I have 768mb of Physical RAM which is enough IMHO for a notebook setup.
> > /dev/hda6 508 1966 11719386 83 Linux
>
> must be your mpeg movies in hda6
>
This is my /home/ partition.
No, I use Maildir. And I also have lots of documents. I made this partition
big with an assumption of using it for the next 3 years.
> > /dev/hda7 2514 3648 9116856 83 Linux
>
> your new root eh ... humm ...
>
Yes the new root. Previously it was /dev/hda8
> > /dev/hda8 2159 2513 2851506 83 Linux
>
> i assume /home than ..
>
No, it was root. Now it's the 2.7GB /usr/local/ partition.
> > /dev/hda9 1967 2158 1542208+ 82 Linux swap
>
> more swap still ?? 1.5GB of swap ???
> - you will be running super super slow when you need more memory
>
See my post up and comment on it if any.
> - adding more memory is super cheap compared to running in 1.5GB
> of swap
>
Yes, that's why I added 512mb more.
> > Partition table entries are not in disk order
>
> yup ... aka whacky ...
>
> > Is this something to worry about?
>
> yes and no ...
>
> yes if you care about the system running faster and "better"
>
> no if you dont care as long as it sort works for now
>
> > I just modified my partition table using
> > parted to make a new swap partition. Previously / was /dev/hda8 and now
> > it's /dev/hda7. Everything is working fine for me.
>
> good ... sounds like parted also changed your etc/fstab to match
> from the old / to the new /
>
No, it didn't. I did it manually. parted isn't designed to do that. Yes, it
indeed reminds you.
> > Just the message, "Partition table entries are not in disk order".
> > Is it something to worry about? Will it slowly damage my disk?
>
> probably ... lots of head movement
>
I think the head movement would have been earlier too when I hadn't made room
for the swap partition. Isn't it so ?
Thanks for the reply.
rrs
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com
Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC
"Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is
research".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCPWNA4Rhi6gTxMLwRAujeAJ9VI6X9byfH4usHp5HZBuhkGrrIVwCfX1d9
tyXr5x8PUhy1RwrnxYXpfNY=
=6DuT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: