Data partition best strategy? dual boot

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what would be the best data partitioning strategy for dual booting xp & linux.

1. have one big partition, say 60GB, dedicated to hold all datas for both OS that is fat32, mount it to linux and save all my work in that partition which will be used as xp data partition as well.

2. 25GB NTFS for xp data, 25GB ext3 for linux data, 10GB fat32 used only to exchange data between OS.

I feel like the first option is more attractive since "one to rule them all" is always good and easy, is there anything bad about that option, is it even doable? I will not save anything over 4GB, mostly text files and codes.

Note. the above mentioned strategy does NOT include OS partitions, swap...etc. but only data.

Thanks
SJ

 

< XP, NTFS > < Data, FAT32 or NTFS (requires ntfs-3g)> < Swap > < Linux, ext3>

I have used this setup many times; it seems to work. Also you can switch the swap and Linux partitions around if you please.

 

whats the purpose of the swap partition and the data partition?

on multi-boot systems i tend to prefer one partition for each OS and one for storage.

so normally its <XP> <DATA> <LINUX>

 

The data partition is for your files; it is separate from both operating systems so that both may have access to it. This is necessary if you want access to your data from both OSs as having the data on one partition often gets you into permission issues. Linux can read and write to both FAT32 or NTFS.

The swap partition is necessary for Linux to use as a page file. Basically it uses a piece of the hard drive as a substitute for RAM when the latter runs out.

 

I guess my question would be if there is any short comings in using one big fat32 partition to hold all my data to share with both OS other than the 4GB per file limit. I prefer fat32 if it's one partition since it's supported natively with either OS.

 

i actually use one NTFS for WinXP, then ext3 for Linux/Swap/Data. Installed an ext2 driver from for WinXP and it works really well (it can read/write ext3 too, just doesnt support journaling).
I think FAT32 is too limited, and i'm afraid of data loss with NTFS-3g (i'm probobly just paranoid though, never had anything go wrong the times i've tried it).

Worth looking into in my opinion.

However i've found that i'm rarely in Windows on that computer anymore

 

fat32 is not a journaling file system. You are better off using ext3 which is a much better file system than fat32 and use one of the various methods of accessing Linux file systems from Windows.

http://www.howtoforge.com/access-linux-partitions-from-windows

 

Yeah, I don't believe there is a reason for FAT32 anymore, not with Ubuntu OTB anyway.

I have NTFS (Vista) 150gb , /(reiserfs) 43gb, /home (ext3) 55gb, /swap 2gb. I have a mounted 500gb NTFS (in linux) ext harddrive for additional storage. I wouldn't use FAT32, it fragments like crazy too.

 

What does Ubuntu have anything to do with it. I can access my NTFS partitions from PCLinuxOS and Mandriva just fine too. This is just a Linux feature, not a Ubuntu feature.

 

FAT32 has a file size limit of 4GB or so. Its also supposed to become more easily fragmented than NTFS.

 

Nothing...I said OTB support, maybe the others do...wouldn't know

 

Whether it is out of the box or not has nothing to do with whether fat32 is useful any more. It is like saying that Aero will be obsolete when Compiz-Fusion is installed and enabled by default on Ubuntu. You see? Aero is already obsolete, regardless of whether Compiz is installed by default or not in Ubuntu.

By the way, the reason why Mandriva and PCLinuxOS do not enable ntfs-3g out of the box is similar to the reason why Compiz-Fusion is not enabled by default. It is still not considered stable enough, for their standards. Ubuntu's marketing machine, on the other hand, thought that enabling it by default would gain them more "wow", so they went for it. I guess they have different priorities.

In any case, enabling it on PClinuxOS or Mandriva, or any other Linux distro, is just a matter of installing ntfs-3g and ntfs-config from the repo and runing the NTFS configuration tool to tell it what partitions to use it on.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I like Ubuntu. And, I am willing to allow for people's difference in taste. But, it just gets tiering to keep hearing Ubuntu admirers wanting to give it credit for everything under the Sun when in reality it falls short in many areas compared to other distros.

 

rm2, thanks for clarifying that for our silent audience, but where does Ubuntu fall short compared to other distros? I'm not being a smart @ss, I really would like to know because I've run the gamut on many of them....we can move this to another thread if you like

 

hey now. compiz fusion runs just fine thank you very much. not to mention, it's just a fusion of beryl and compiz extras and not some new project created from scratch. hmm...maybe that's how they got the name compiz fusion... anyway, was beryl ever enabled by default on mandriva or pclinuxos? i don't use ubuntu, by the way, but the ubuntuforums.org is a great resource. i've solved many a problem with the help from some of those guys.

edit: i've been using ntfs-3g since 2006. how long will it be before it's stable enough by their standards?

 

What is the best way to have my data partition? from the way it looks ext3 is the way to go with driver for xp? Note that this partition is the only place where I store ALL my data, therefore stability and reliability is my number 1 concern.

I will be using windows to store my data mostly, I would say 70/30 windows/linux

I keep wondering if I should use fat32 is because as I said before it is support natively by both OS, everytime I think about using software to access read/write my data, it always makes me nerves. In my case I would be writing data using third party software 70% of the time. I read that for windows it will not support journaling anyway when I mount ext3 as it will treat it as ext2.

Is there an absolute disadvantage not to use fat32, like it will loose your data kind of deal? for fragmentation, does it really effect everyday computing, coding? mind you this is only the data we are talking about, not the OS, i.e., text files and some photos.

Thanks for all the inputs so far, really appreciate them!

 

i have yet to have a problem with ntfs-3g. i've used samba for quite a while and most of my data that's written is from linux to windows. if you're that concerned with about your data, implement raid or use a backup strategy. or, you can create a /storage partition on the linux partition for your data instead of using windows to store your data. you can use something like ext2 installable file system to read/write to linux while booted in windows. if you're booted into linux you just need to mount the windows partition. nothing needs to be installed. that's because linux is awesome. other than that, you can look into 'file lifetimes' when setting up your lvm/non-lvm partitions. however, for everyday use, not in a server environment, i've never noticed any difference with lvm, non-lvm, partitioning, etc. i.e. i have a /, /boot, swap and everything on /. as you are asking for help on something that's part of basic administration that most people who 'grasp' linux would not need help with, and unless you're on a real crappy system and need to squeeze all the performance out of your box that you can, i doubt if you would really notice any benefits from a strategically partitioned layout. you'll be fine if you run with the default layout during install.

 

After agonizing over this tough decision, I have decided to use the following strategy, I have a laptop and desktop.
for laptop (only for work stuff)
20GB NTFS -xp
20GB ext3 - linux, prob mint or slack, still deciding
rest fat32 for data only shared

desktop(some work mostly play, hence multimedia is important - large file possible)
3 drives -80GB 160GB 320GB
80GB for xp only, (yes I need all 80 for XP) installed lots of games at the moment taking out 50GB already. thats why I bought a 80GB driver just for windows installation (same price as 160GB, but I like 80GB just enough for my need)

320GB for Data in NTFS only for windows

160GB drive dedicated for Linux (quad boot distros) + swap + Linux data(ext3) + likely 10GB fat32 for exchange.

extra software will be involved in my setup....yet

I will see how it does with my laptop, fat32 for all, works, if all is well for a few months, I might follow with the desktop.

If those who helped cared why I suddenly need to do what I do now. Up until recently I never NEED linux, I have always used linux for fun and play. However that changed that I now need to use linux (required) so I need to think of a good way to store my data where it is most portable.

thank you everyone, I am off to backup and wipe my harddrive now!

 

Sounds good, I'll start a thread on this.

 

i think it all comes down to which one you want to spend your time in that makes it 'better'. aside from the installer interface and pretty pictures or package managers or init system, they're pretty much all the same to me. i'm just happy with a distro where i don't have to compile from scratch all the time.

 

Do you know what you're getting into trying to quad-boot Linux distro's? I've given up on multi-booting. Too much hassle. Every time any one of those distros updates its kernel the other distros will be unbootable until you go in and screw around with boot/menu.lst or fstab, don't remember which.

It has something to do with new distro's assigning UUID #'s to all the partitions instead of just "/dev/sd**". I decided more hassle than it's worth. Chances are you're going to end up using one distro anyways if you actually want to get any work done. If your goal is to continually compare and experiment at least look into the UUID bear trap.

 

I am quad booting on my laptop and six or seven booting on my desktop.
The only thing to do with subsequent linux installations is to tell them to install grub into their own partition. Then all you have to do it to append to the menu.lst of the main linux partition (the one who put GRUB in the MBR) in order to add the menu for the latest kernel.
It's just a matter of copying two menu entries from one menu.lst to the other.

As for the UUID, I've removed them and used /dev/sdxx instead.