Partitioning a disk for dual booting


P

Pandora

Dual booting Ubuntu and Vista has been dealt with in other threads but
I can't Google an answer to my question:
Which file system should I use to format a brand new 160GB SATA HDD so
that I can use it to dual boot Vista Home Premium and Ubuntu 7.04?

Some further information -

My new p.c. is 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor. It has an
existing 500GB SATA drive with the Vista setup files stored on a
partition on this drive (the p.c. was supplied this way - I do not
have a Vista DVD)

I am going to install the 160GB drive as the master drive and was
going to partition it 10GB for Linux and 150GB for Vista. The 500GB
drive I would then use just for data (I like to keep data separate
from the OS files).

So, how should I format the 160GB drive for my application? (FAT32?
NTFS? Linux fdisk? Vista fdisk?). This is my first time with Linux and
I'd appreciate the benefit of your experience.
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Pandora

Dual booting Ubuntu and Vista has been dealt with in other threads but
I can't Google an answer to my question:
Which file system should I use to format a brand new 160GB SATA HDD so
that I can use it to dual boot Vista Home Premium and Ubuntu 7.04?

Sorry - that should be Ubuntu 7.10
 
R

ray

Dual booting Ubuntu and Vista has been dealt with in other threads but
I can't Google an answer to my question:
Which file system should I use to format a brand new 160GB SATA HDD so
that I can use it to dual boot Vista Home Premium and Ubuntu 7.04?

That would be your choice. You'll probably want ntfs for MS - does vista
give you any choice? For Linux, I frequently use reiser, but you can also
use ext2/3 or several others.
Some further information -

My new p.c. is 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor. It has an
existing 500GB SATA drive with the Vista setup files stored on a
partition on this drive (the p.c. was supplied this way - I do not
have a Vista DVD)

I am going to install the 160GB drive as the master drive and was
going to partition it 10GB for Linux and 150GB for Vista. The 500GB
drive I would then use just for data (I like to keep data separate
from the OS files).

So, how should I format the 160GB drive for my application? (FAT32?
NTFS? Linux fdisk? Vista fdisk?). This is my first time with Linux and
I'd appreciate the benefit of your experience.

I would assume you will have MS installed first - so no decision there.
Again, with Linux you have several choices. Ubuntu will help you resize
and repartition as a part of the installation - at that time, you can
choose which file system you want for your Linux partitions. Ubuntu will
also automagically set up the dual boot for you as it finishes the install.
 
M

Martha Adams

ray said:
That would be your choice. You'll probably want ntfs for MS - does
vista
give you any choice? For Linux, I frequently use reiser, but you can
also
use ext2/3 or several others.


I would assume you will have MS installed first - so no decision
there.
Again, with Linux you have several choices. Ubuntu will help you
resize
and repartition as a part of the installation - at that time, you can
choose which file system you want for your Linux partitions. Ubuntu
will
also automagically set up the dual boot for you as it finishes the
install.

I think your objectives break down into two parts: 1) Getting Started;
and
2) for the Long Run. And that depending upon if you are in parts 1 or
2,
your best strategies are different.

The multiple options for which filesystem and etc, seem to me Part 2
things, to be indulged in after you know your way around. I'm wary of
these, too, because I suspect these are attractive to ultra types who
are in to the Latest and Greatest. Also, I think it's a good question
if
by using these, you're really at all better off than if you just went
the
simple route and practiced good operating and backup policy.

For these reasons, I propose you go with FAT32 whenever you can
use it. Not even ext2! That is because, if for some reason you must
pull out your HD and install it into another machine, FAT32 is the
most generic. If you cannot do FAT32 then my second choice is
ext2; and in decades of using FAT16 and then FAT32 and then ext2,
I've never had a crash that broke my filesystem. (Well, I've had very
few crashes.)

Well, I did have a bad spell a few years ago. It turned out, my
RAM was flakey and when the summer humidity came in, it went
bad; and then come winter, it was good again. I finally figured out
what was going on, and moved my then current HD over into a new
machine (another junk machine from a flea market), where it is
working fine now.

So that's my thinking re your question. But also, why the tiny little
partition (10 G) for Linux? I think you want to give yourself more
space, as in two 20G partitions.

A key point not generally mentioned, is sooner or later you're going
to find yourself with several machines in hand. Do treat these nicely,
and keep manuals or notes on each one of them. Thus, you will
have the option to pull out your HD from one machine and install it
into another. *Those HDs are not welded in!* This gives you a
new degree of freedom that can be very useful and so you want to
recognize the possibility, and implement it.

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Dec 13]
 
P

Pandora

That would be your choice. You'll probably want ntfs for MS - does
vista
give you any choice? For Linux, I frequently use reiser, but you can
also
use ext2/3 or several others.
I would assume you will have MS installed first - so no decision
there.
Again, with Linux you have several choices. Ubuntu will help you
resize
and repartition as a part of the installation - at that time, you can
choose which file system you want for your Linux partitions. Ubuntu
will
also automagically set up the dual boot for you as it finishes the
install.

I think your objectives break down into two parts: 1) Getting Started;
and
2) for the Long Run. And that depending upon if you are in parts 1 or
2,
your best strategies are different.

The multiple options for which filesystem and etc, seem to me Part 2
things, to be indulged in after you know your way around. I'm wary of
these, too, because I suspect these are attractive to ultra types who
are in to the Latest and Greatest. Also, I think it's a good question
if
by using these, you're really at all better off than if you just went
the
simple route and practiced good operating and backup policy.

For these reasons, I propose you go with FAT32 whenever you can
use it. Not even ext2! That is because, if for some reason you must
pull out your HD and install it into another machine, FAT32 is the
most generic. If you cannot do FAT32 then my second choice is
ext2; and in decades of using FAT16 and then FAT32 and then ext2,
I've never had a crash that broke my filesystem. (Well, I've had very
few crashes.)

Well, I did have a bad spell a few years ago. It turned out, my
RAM was flakey and when the summer humidity came in, it went
bad; and then come winter, it was good again. I finally figured out
what was going on, and moved my then current HD over into a new
machine (another junk machine from a flea market), where it is
working fine now.

So that's my thinking re your question. But also, why the tiny little
partition (10 G) for Linux? I think you want to give yourself more
space, as in two 20G partitions.

A key point not generally mentioned, is sooner or later you're going
to find yourself with several machines in hand. Do treat these nicely,
and keep manuals or notes on each one of them. Thus, you will
have the option to pull out your HD from one machine and install it
into another. *Those HDs are not welded in!* This gives you a
new degree of freedom that can be very useful and so you want to
recognize the possibility, and implement it.

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Dec 13]


What a well-crafted and reasoned reply. Thank you, Martha, I will take
your advice.
 
G

Gremenbulin

"ray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
For these reasons, I propose you go with FAT32 whenever you can
use it. Not even ext2! That is because, if for some reason you must
pull out your HD and install it into another machine, FAT32 is the
most generic. If you cannot do FAT32 then my second choice is
ext2; and in decades of using FAT16 and then FAT32 and then ext2,
I've never had a crash that broke my filesystem. (Well, I've had very
few crashes.)

FAT is inefficient for large file systems. It is useful to have
FAT data partitions, but one big 500G FAT data drive is not the
way to go. It's not good for multimedia either, because of limit
on maximum file size. i would go for a mixture of smallish FAT
partitions and larger ext2 paritions (windows handles ext2 better than
linux handles NTFS). Check out the incredibly useful Ext2 IFS gizmo
http://www.fs-driver.org/
 
Ad

Advertisements

7

7

Pandora said:
Dual booting Ubuntu and Vista has been dealt with in other threads but
I can't Google an answer to my question:

The problem you have is that micoshaft PISTA is inferior technology
and doesn't know hot to dual boot into Linux. Unlike Linux which does.

So you can dump micoshaft corporation's PISTA with immediate effect and go
with superior technology like Linux.

http://www.livecdlist.com - free livecds with source code
http://www.distrowatch.com

If you are really desperate to PISTIFY your computer, then
you can run up PISTA in a virtual machine inside Linux using free
software like Qemu, Virtual box, or supported products like VMWare
and focus on getting PISTA running in a window and transfer files
between PISTA and Linux applications. That way, you begin to lose
the need to PISTA altogther and focus more on data interchange
and interoperability instead of micoshaft data lock in crap thats got
all your data by the balls. e.g. One million users a week are switching to
Open Office www.openoffice.org to flee micoshaft data lock in for all their
word processing and spread sheet data. Its just fantastic the Open Office
thing!

A third alternative is to use a different machine for your PISTA
and exchange files through networking using something like winscp
to transfer data securely without the dangers of PISTIFIED computers
on the network snooping in on your data.
You can get a fairly decent computer for $200 these days.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top