On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:41:53PM EDT, Joe wrote: > postid wrote: > >I'm tempted to reinstall, this time making all four partitions > >primary partitions. > > > >These logical partitions seem illogical to me. Have I done something > >wrong or is it just that way with logical partitions? What are the > >advantages/disadvantages of logical and primary partitions?. I've > >read about them on the web, but it's still as clear as mud to me.
[..] > As Lisi has pointed out, the *nix operating systems use a single > filesystem, regardless of how many drives, partitions or network > shares it may be actually composed of. The /etc/fstab file shows the > operating system how to _mount the various drives_ and shares, i.e. at > which branch of the filesystem to attach them. The mount command, > issued without parameters, will show the current state of play and can > be used to manually mount and dismount drives and partitions. The *nix > filesystem is quite structured compared to that of Windows, which puts > log files in a subdirectory of the system DLL library. I don't know anything about Windows but it sounds like fun.. :-) I'll just add this to your (AFAICT) excellent post/intro - especially for newcomers with some M$ experience: You don't mount drives (unless you are referring to unsnapping the machine's case and connecting a new piece of hardware). It may sound like nitpicking but it really is not. The objects that the "mount" command handles are "file systems" - cf. line 6 of "man mount". True, the same man page mentions "mounting partitions" a couple times but the target of the mount command is really a file system that happens to live on the particular partition. Try mounting an unformatted partition, one that does not harbor a file system. In keeping with *nix's recursive habits (for lack of a better term..) we are dealing with the indispensible root filesystem - aka '/' .. that can be extended (ad infinitum?) by plugging in more file systems that may themselves define mount points where you would be able to plug in yet further file systems.. etc. etc. I have a distinct feeling that recent users of *nix and derivatives are sometimes confused by the mount concept, hence the numerous posts that refer to mounting CD/DVD's or "drives". And although I don't use them myself, for all their "user friendliness" (M$ friendliness as I call it) I'm not so sure environments that try to represent this via icons help clarify the issue. > The advantage of this method is that if a drive is filling up, you can > fit and install an additional drive. You can then take one or more of > the sub-branches of the part of the filesystem located on the > nearly-full drive, move their contents to new empty partitions, then > adjust /etc/fstab and dismount and remount the entries (or reboot the > machine) and from now on those sub-branches will live on the new drive, > freeing space in the branch from which they were moved (just copying > them will not empty the space). This is a bit trickier if the 'system' > parts of the filesystem need to be moved, and is probably best done offline. Here again, and though I agree with your explanation, they are not _in essence_ "sub-branches" but rather individual file systems with their own specifics (type of file system, block size, journal options where relevant.. etc.). Maybe a simple illustration of what I'm driving at might be the case where you have to boot off of a live-CD to correct some show-stopping screw-up that originates in a file that resides in what is normally the /boot directory of your regular system which happens to live alone on partition #7 of your first HD. For the life of your rescue session, you mount this particular file system on whatever mount-point is available (create/mkdir one if you must..) and there, where it now temporarily lives, it becomes just another piece of accessible data.. one that's totally meaningless to the currently running "system". > If you've ever moved data to a new drive under Windows, you will know > that the utility you use must locate all references (shortcuts, > registry entries etc.) to the moved files and change the drive letter > associated with every one of them. This is impossible when references > are embedded within other files. Under *nix, the moved files still > have exactly the same pathname, even if they now live on a share on a > different computer. What used to be even worse under Windows was that > adding a new drive containing one or more primary partitions would > alter the existing drive letter assignments above C:\. Great fun, and > at least that ended with XP. Individual drive and partition > designations which are visible to the user are a legacy of DOS which > Windows, nearly twenty years on, still hasn't left behind. Thanks, -- CJ "I don't have a future.. only the present." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
