David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 14:27 (UTC-0600): > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 13:41:33 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
>> David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 10:19 (UTC-0600): >> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: >> >>> This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. >> >> Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, >> > What's so unusual about that? >> Standing alone, absolutely nothing, but it wasn't standing alone.... > (The OP is standing alone, leaving us aside.) > By snipping the rhetorical question that introduces my paragraph, it > now appears that "unusual" refers to the partitioning scheme. It > doesn't. It wasn't intended to. > It refers to the absence of a sysadmin. Intended. >> >> absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, >> >> > If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the >> > filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended >> > partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two >> > primary partitions set up first? >> Off the top of my head: >> 1-trivial I know, but avoiding seeing fdisk report "Partition table entries >> are not in disk order" >> 2-less trivial: partitions not being in disk order > I don't understand. The time sequence would be > sda1=primary [ free > ] > sda1=primary [ "sda2"=extended > ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical free > ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical free > ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical free > ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical sda8=logical > possibly-free ] > What's out of order? This looks like it's assuming reference to the OP's disk state, which is not what I was writing about. AFAIK, when entries /are/ out of order, far more steps had to have been involved than those you listed. >> 3-potential to have a primary partition added following a logical, thereby >> making following >> freespace unavailable for one or more added logicals (disappearing >> freespace). > With the scenario above, it would be usual to fill the disk with the > extended partition, so there's no possibility of adding another primary. Yes, when filling the disk at the outset. With the escalation of disk sizes over the years, it's become more common not to allocate 100% at the outset. In non-ancient memory I only ever fully allocated with my own disks at the outset with data disks, until small SDDs became cheap. Some partitioning tools are better than others at allowing oneself to shoot oneself in the foot. > Here's the partition table of this laptop. Care to guess it's > evolution? > Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size > 1 2048 2050047 1000.0 MiB > 2 2050048 2582527 260.0 MiB > 3 2582528 4630527 1000.0 MiB > 4 4630528 4892671 128.0 MiB > 5 4892672 347348991 163.3 GiB > 6 347348992 429268991 39.1 GiB / > 7 429268992 511188991 39.1 GiB > 8 511188992 883275775 177.4 GiB /home > 9 883275776 883292159 8.0 MiB > 10 883292160 892084223 4.2 GiB swap > 11 892086272 892803071 350.0 MiB > 12 892803072 894900223 1024.0 MiB > 13 894900224 947329023 25.0 GiB > 14 947329024 976773119 14.0 GiB > Constrained by an inability to repartition the disk, how would > you distribute a Debian system across it while wasting the > least space? That's a bit sketchy. How about you do one of mine? Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size 1 63 80324 39.2 MiB 2 80325 578339 243.2 MiB 3 578340 1397654 400.1 MiB 5 1397718 3502169 1.0 GiB swap 6 3502233 17848214 6.8 GiB WinSYS 7 17848278 30137939 5.9 GiB / 8 30138003 35053829 2.3 GiB /home 9 35053893 44451854 4.5 GiB 10 44451918 46540304 1019.7 MiB /usr/local 11 46540368 58010714 5.5 GiB / 12 58010778 69481124 5.5 GiB / 13 69481188 80951534 5.5 GiB / 14 80951598 92421944 5.5 GiB / 15 92422008 103892354 5.5 GiB / 16 103892418 115362764 5.5 GiB / 17 115362828 126833174 5.5 GiB / 18 126833238 138303584 5.5 GiB / 19 138303648 149773994 5.5 GiB / 20 149774058 161244404 5.5 GiB / 21 161244468 172714814 5.5 GiB / 22 172714878 184185224 5.5 GiB / 23 184185288 195655634 5.5 GiB / 24 195655698 207126044 5.5 GiB / 25 207126108 218596454 5.5 GiB / 26 218596518 230066864 5.5 GiB / 27 230066928 241537274 5.5 GiB / 28 241537338 253007684 5.5 GiB 29 253007748 264478094 5.5 GiB / 30 264478158 275948504 5.5 GiB / 31 275948568 287418914 5.5 GiB / 32 287418978 298889324 5.5 GiB / 33 937312488 961361729 11.5 GiB Win data 34 961361793 975707774 6.8 GiB 35 975707838 976751999 509.8 MiB 36 976752063 976768064 7.8 MiB Note the relative vastness of unused space. Can't tell the players without a program: http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/gx62b.txt BTW, 36 is near an average count here. I have one with 57, more than one with >40, and probably >8 with >30. My newest PC has 50, though spread across 3 disks, with 20 comprising 10 RAID1 devices, and zero freespace remaining for partition creation. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
