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 ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
