[SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

Sameer · 2013-09-20 18:13:52

Hi guys!
Here is an extreme newbie Q...
I want to install Arch linux...
I have windows 8 64-bit installed on the HDD with MBR partition table...
And here are my partitions (in order) that I see from the arch usb installation media:

/dev/sda1: System Reserved (primary, active)
/dev/sda2: C (primary)
/dev/sda3: Extended
/dev/sda5: D (Logical)
/dev/sda6: E (Logical)
Uallocated space.

So I already have 2 primary and 1 extended partition.
Now, my question is: Why did it skipped the number sda4?
Is it normal?
When I create third primary partition on unallocated space, it assigns the number sda4 to it...
What is going on?

Last edited by Sameer (2013-09-24 11:34:57)

brebs · 2013-09-20 19:54:25

Probably related to:

Only four primary partitions can exist on a hard disk.

2ManyDogs · 2013-09-20 19:58:45

Sameer wrote:

Now, my question is: Why did it skipped the number sda4?
Is it normal?

Yes, this is normal.

"man fdisk" wrote:

A DOS-type partition table can describe an unlimited number of partitions. In sector 0 there is room for the description of 4 partitions (called 'primary'). One of these may be an extended partition; this is a box holding logical partitions, with descriptors found in a linked list of sectors, each preceding the corresponding logical partitions. The four primary partitions, present or not, get numbers 1-4. Logical partitions start numbering from 5.

Last edited by 2ManyDogs (2013-09-20 19:59:34)

donniezazen · 2013-09-20 20:36:29

It is normal. You could use GPT to get over restriction of 4 primary partitions and have them orderly numbered.

srs5694 · 2013-09-21 01:49:58

donniezazen wrote:

It is normal. You could use GPT to get over restriction of 4 primary partitions and have them orderly numbered.

This is true; however, Windows will boot from a GPT disk only on an EFI-based system. If the computer in question supports EFI, you can make that switch, as described here, or you can re-install Windows. If the computer is strictly BIOS-based (as are most that are older than about 2 or 2.5 years), you're pretty much stuck with MBR if you're booting Windows from the disk. Overall, it's probably better to just stick with MBR partitioning.

FWIW, Linux doesn't need to reside on a primary partition. Given the setup described by Sameer, my recommendation would actually be to use GParted to expand the size of the extended partition (/dev/sda3) to cover the whole disk, and then create logical partitions for Linux. This way you won't use up all of the primary partitions, which might prove to be important in the future, should you need another primary for some reason. It can also keep the partition numbers increasing, albeit with a jump from 3 to 5.

Sameer · 2013-09-21 13:58:01

Thanks!!
Thanks to all!!!!

Thanks to 2ManyDogs... for man page info...

srs5694.. thanks and if I want to install the Arch on a logical drive, then is there any different thing to do during installation? or should I follow the normal installation steps on the Wiki?

Last edited by Sameer (2013-09-21 14:02:25)

srs5694 · 2013-09-21 19:31:05

Sameer wrote:

srs5694.. thanks and if I want to install the Arch on a logical drive, then is there any different thing to do during installation? or should I follow the normal installation steps on the Wiki?

There aren't likely to be any differences, although one exception does spring to mind: If you use the Windows boot loader in the MBR, then it redirects the boot process to the primary partition marked with a boot/active flag. This precludes installing Linux entirely to logical partitions, unless perhaps you set aside a primary partition to hold GRUB. If you install GRUB's first stage in the MBR, though, this problem doesn't exist. I haven't checked the Arch wiki recently, but most distributions recommend installing GRUB's first stage to the MBR, so I doubt if you'll run into the problem I just outlined.

Sameer · 2013-09-22 14:54:48

srs5694 wrote:

...so I doubt if you'll run into the problem I just outlined.

Thanks! I'll try that too

Arch Linux

#1 2013-09-20 18:13:52

[SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#2 2013-09-20 19:54:25

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#3 2013-09-20 19:58:45

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#4 2013-09-20 20:36:29

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#5 2013-09-21 01:49:58

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#6 2013-09-21 13:58:01

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#7 2013-09-21 19:31:05

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

#8 2013-09-22 14:54:48

Re: [SOLVED]Why the partition numbers are not in sequence?

Board footer