7 partitions on a netbook.

[amiejay]

I have an ASUS Eee PC Seashell 1005HA-PU17-BK, 250 GB HDD.
I'm going to put 3 different linux distros on it, like this:
1) 2 GB - xPUD (very fast booting OS, is pretty much just firefox and a music player)
2) 4 GB - Puppy Linux (fast and cute, an actual full OS)'
3) 12 GB - *buntu (for when I need something bigger than the 100 MB puppy linux. I'm not sure whether i should use Ubuntu NBR or Eeebuntu NBR or Xubuntu or Eeebuntu LXDE edition...)
4) 40 GB - Windows 7 Starter (for running .exe's and games and testing some programs I'm currently developing for windows--going to branch out into linux, though. It works pretty good in regular ubuntu right now but the background doesn't load and it can't save or load...)
5) ? GB - Windows 7 recover (the built in recovery thing for windows since the netbook doesn't have a DVD drive for a regular recovery disk. I don't know how big Asus's are, or if they even had one. My HP netbook had an 11 GB one, but i returned that netbook and am getting an Eee PC now, and i don't know what Asus does)

The 6th partition is just a Fat 32 for storing all of my files and stuff for sharing between all OS's. It'll be 150+ GB, whatever is left.
The 7th will be a 2 GB swap partition.

I'm testing this out on a virtual machine first, but just with a 40 GB HDD on the virtual machine, and it will look like this except with larger sizes:
i49.tinypic.com/10y124h.png

Order of partition matters, right? The things that are first run faster? If so, the order will be just like in the screen shot:
Windows first, it needs the extra speed....then Ubuntu, then puppy, then xPUD, then all of my files, then the swap, and lastly, the recovery. I probably won't use the last 2 parititons very much since i don't really expect to hibernate or run into a problem, and if i do, then the performance different will be pretty negligible for just that once that it's accessed.

[coopstah13]

partition order doesn't matter at all for performance

[amiejay]

partition order doesn't matter at all for performance

But...the closer to the edge of the HDD, the more data gets read for each spin, right? it isn't a SDD, it's a 5400 rpm HDD.

Also, I can just do a frugal install of puppy and xPUD onto my ubuntu partition, so it'd only need to be:
Windows 7
*buntu/pupp*/xPUD
Files
Swap
Recovery

or would a separate partition for each be more efficient?
I'm never going to fill up this HDD btw. I could be fine with a 10 GB files partition. I've always only used about 20 GB or so, INCLUDING a Vista or 7 installation, on my PC's (hence why a netbook is ideal for me. I pretty much just do software development and web browsing).
But then i got into games and my bro got a steam account so now i'm using 80 GB on THIS computer, but i won't be playing too many games on the netbook, and those would be part of the 40 GB windows partition anyways....

* The asterisks shows that i'm unsure still whether to throw on Eeebuntu or Ubuntu / Puppy or Puppeee Linux

[rokytnji]

I have a Asus EEE PC with SSD 4 gig that runs MacPUP OK. I also run AntiX 8.2 off External 8gig SD Flash card.

If You look at This thread. This is how my other laptop runs multiboot windows and linux.

[amiejay]

Thanks downloading AntiX 8.2 as we speak.

I'll look into some puppy themes, too.

Checked out the thread. I use Grub 2, though, and he didn't do a frugal install of puppy....isn't that better because RAM is so much faster than a 5400 rpm HDD? my Eee has 1 GB of RAM, btw (667 Mhz) and looking into upgrading to 2 GB of 800 Mhz

[rokytnji]

. I use Grub 2,

I don't use grub 2 yet. So at a loss there

frugal install of puppy....isn't that better

In some cases yes. Depends on your needs

my Eee has 1 GB of RAM, btw (667 Mhz)

I put a 2 gig stick to replace the 1 gig stick in my EEE 900 (non Atom processor)
Be careful on what clock speed you order as sometimes they don't work.
This Forum which I also belong to is a great resource when finding out what works and don't work on EEEPCs.

[rokytnji]

If going with a external flash drive install. Here is my tutorial also for AntiX 8.2 to Flash

It may also be helpful for internal install to hardrive also. Wouldn't hurt to look at it anyhows.

[coopstah13]

You're talking about disk IO, which is the slowest component of the machine. Any performance increase by partition scheme will be negligible.

[amiejay]

My 5400 rpm HDD get's about 80 MB/s. My flash drives only get 10-20 MB/s (lower for write).
>.> just don't mention random access...
But are you saying I should just use the SDHC slot as a permanent housing for a few distros?
(Although that's why i'm doing a frugal install of puppy, so that it is all in my RAM and not reading from my HDD. It's a sequential file, so, aside from seeking to it, wouldn't the HDD load the whole file faster than an SD card?)

Oh, and, the N280 atom's FSB is 667 but Asus overclocks it sometimes to 800 so that's why i'm getting 800 Mhz RAM It's compatible, and actually recommended for optium OC-ing performance.

[Rubberman]

But...the closer to the edge of the HDD, the more data gets read for each spin, right? it isn't a SDD, it's a 5400 rpm HDD.

Also, I can just do a frugal install of puppy and xPUD onto my ubuntu partition, so it'd only need to be:
Windows 7
*buntu/pupp*/xPUD
Files
Swap
Recovery

or would a separate partition for each be more efficient?
I'm never going to fill up this HDD btw. I could be fine with a 10 GB files partition. I've always only used about 20 GB or so, INCLUDING a Vista or 7 installation, on my PC's (hence why a netbook is ideal for me. I pretty much just do software development and web browsing).
But then i got into games and my bro got a steam account so now i'm using 80 GB on THIS computer, but i won't be playing too many games on the netbook, and those would be part of the 40 GB windows partition anyways....

* The asterisks shows that i'm unsure still whether to throw on Eeebuntu or Ubuntu / Puppy or Puppeee Linux

When running a Linux OS, the position of the installation on the HD is pretty much irrelevant, given how Linux caches files. The absolute difference between one OS installed at one end of the drive, and another that is effectively equivalent, at the other end, is nominal, at worst. Linux utilizes a technique called elevator seaking when reading data. This means basicallly that it positions the read heads as it likely to be needed for the next read operation. Since each OS is located in a contiguous section of the hard drive, relatively each will perform (all other factors being equal) the same. Each read operation takes in the same amount of data. Yes, in absolute terms the rotational speed/latency will have some affect, but nothing that you can measure without very sophisticated tools.