partition numbering on a HD

[Timothy Daniels]

Could someone here tell me if partition numbers are
ordered from the outer tracks to the inner tracks of
a hard disk, or from inner to outer? IOW, is partition
#1 on the outer or inner tracks?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Could someone here tell me if partition numbers are
ordered from the outer tracks to the inner tracks of
a hard disk, or from inner to outer? IOW, is partition
#1 on the outer or inner tracks?

Depends entirely on what was used to do the partitioning and the history of that.

The partition number is just an entry in the partition table and
which area of the hard drive is used in each partition table
entry is entirely determined by the entrys in that table.

You can see the data in the partition table entrys with any decent
partition table editor or any sector editor if you also use the data
on the first physical sector layout on the hard drive.

Its more usual for the outer tracks to be used for the
first partition, but thats not mandated by anything.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Rod Speed" replied:

Depends entirely on what was used to do the partitioning
and the history of that.

The partition number is just an entry in the partition table
and which area of the hard drive is used in each partition
table entry is entirely determined by the entrys in that table.

You can see the data in the partition table entrys with any
decent partition table editor or any sector editor if you
also use the data on the first physical sector layout on the
hard drive.

Its more usual for the outer tracks to be used for the
first partition, but thats not mandated by anything.

In the case of my Dell's XPS M1330 laptop, Disk
Management shows (from left to right):
78MB EISA configured partition
10GB Primary partition (D
136.47GB Primary Active partition (C
2.5GB Primary partition

Does this indicate which partition is on the outermost
tracks?

How does one delete an EISA partition? (Dell says
that the EISA partition is "completely inaccessible" to
the user.)

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

"Rod Speed" replied:

In the case of my Dell's XPS M1330 laptop, Disk
Management shows (from left to right):
78MB EISA configured partition
10GB Primary partition (D
136.47GB Primary Active partition (C
2.5GB Primary partition

Does this indicate which partition is on the outermost tracks?

Nar like I said you need to use a partition table EDITOR or
a sector editor to see the entrys in the partition table itself.

How does one delete an EISA partition?

Any decent partition manager can do that.

(Dell says that the EISA partition is "completely inaccessible" to the user.)

Its the maintenance partition, you dont want to delete it unless you know what you are doing.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Nar like I said you need to use a partition table EDITOR or
a sector editor to see the entrys in the partition table itself.

In the event the partition editor lists beginning track nos.
for each partition, does the track no. start near the outer edge
or near the center of the hard disk?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Arno Wagner]

Could someone here tell me if partition numbers are
ordered from the outer tracks to the inner tracks of
a hard disk, or from inner to outer? IOW, is partition
#1 on the outer or inner tracks?

*TimDaniels*

There is no natural correspondence. Typically sector numbers are
ordered from outer track to inner, since that gives a better speed
"experience" at the start. But there are disks that do this
for the first platter, then for the second again and so on. There
are even disks that do the first outside in and the second in reverse.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

In the event the partition editor lists beginning track nos.
for each partition, does the track no. start near the outer edge
or near the center of the hard disk?

Not specified in general. See my other posting.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

In the event the partition editor lists beginning track nos.
for each partition, does the track no. start near the outer edge
or near the center of the hard disk?

Like I said in my original, the lower numbers are the outer tracks.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

There is no natural correspondence. Typically sector numbers
are ordered from outer track to inner, since that gives a better
speed "experience" at the start. But there are disks that do this
for the first platter, then for the second again and so on. There
are even disks that do the first outside in and the second in
reverse.

Arno

The type with alternating numbering direction seems to
maximize arm movement since it would flatten a file to one
platter and not use the same tracks in the same cylinder but
on other platters for the file. Or am I missing something?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Like I said in my original, the lower numbers are the outer tracks.

OK, thanks Rod.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Arno Wagner]

The type with alternating numbering direction seems to
maximize arm movement since it would flatten a file to one
platter and not use the same tracks in the same cylinder but
on other platters for the file. Or am I missing something?

Yes. Disks do not necessarily interleave tracks on different
cylinders today. Some just seek to the next cylinder and just
switch platters when the end of one is reached. Since today a
head-switch requires a seek, it is just as slow as a seek in
the first place.

Arno

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Disks do not necessarily interleave tracks on different
cylinders today. Some just seek to the next cylinder and just
switch platters when the end of one is reached. Since today a
head-switch requires a seek, it is just as slow as a seek in
the first place.

OK, now I see that for a transfer of a very large file (or a
large series of files) that span the radius of a platter, track no'g
that alternates from platter to platter would be fastest for single-
surface-at-a-time accesses.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Stretch]

3 days and nobody bothered to correct the idiot babblebot.
This group is obviously dead.

Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]

Yes.

'Yes' what, babblebot.

Disks do not necessarily interleave tracks on different cylinders today.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Some just seek to the next cylinder

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

and just switch platters when the end of one is reached

'One' what babblebot.

Since today a head-switch requires a seek,

But not tomorrow, eh babblebot.

it is just as slow as a seek in the first place.

Clueless idjut.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]

There is no natural correspondence. Typically sector numbers are
ordered from outer track to inner,

You mean outer *cylinder*, don't you, babblebot.

since that gives a better speed "experience" at the start.

But there are disks that do this for the first platter, then for the
second again and so on.

Like there's only one head per platter, eh babblebot.

There are even disks that do the first outside in and the second in reverse.

On cartridge drives, sure.
One platterside inwards, the other platter side outwords.

Any more hidden surprises in your arse, to top that, babblebot?
This is the time to pull them out, now that you're still on a roll.
Shouldn't be too difficult for someone of your caliber.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Timothy Daniels wrote in news:[email protected]

OK, now I see

Of course you do, Timmy.

that for a transfer of a very large file (or a large series of files) that
span the radius of a platter, track no'g that alternates from platter
to platter would be fastest for single-surface-at-a-time accesses.

Strewth, the two of you should start a course in gobbledygook.
I'll bet there's a huge market for it.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]

Not specified in general.

Since it is rather blatantly obvious.

See my other posting.

Your biggest load of rubbish ever, babblebot.