1

Most of the suggestions about "The partitions on the disk selected for installation are not in the recommended order." that I found on the internet and on this site, say 1. using diskpart to clean/ refresh. 2. otherwise format/ delete all partitions.

My 1 TB GPT disk is this, (windows disk management) image1

  • The first partition is Ubuntu 64-bit
  • 4 red circles are for data partitions having my things.
  • "I" has Windows 10 64-bit that stopped working yesterday
  • O has Windows 10 64-bit I installed yesterday, is working.
  • C has Windows 8.1 64-bit I installed yesterday, and currently booted through that.
  • the last non-partition is currently unused.

There are 3 mini-partitions visible that I don't know about. I haven't made them.

I can't practically erase all those things and reinstall all os or copy data back.

Can I correct "partitions not in recommended order" without having to erase major things?

Edited:

Diskpart output:

List Disk: (third one might be net dongle pen drive) HDD0 is giving the message at the time of Windows 8.1 installation in either of the HDD.

image2

List Partition: of HDD0

image3

List volume:

image4

here, under "label", B-prefix is for 1TB HDD0 which is giving that "wrong order" message, all blank labels should be in HDD0. A-prefix is for 500 GB HDD1 that is ok. J might be net dongle.

2
  • 1
    Which OS is giving you this error? Windows 8.1? AFAIK Windows 10 doesn't care about partition order. Windows 8 gives this message but according to this answer it can be ignored. superuser.com/questions/734222/…
    – lx07
    Feb 3, 2019 at 10:06
  • yes, installating windows 8.1 says so. I had been ignoring that since last one year, but yesterday my pc didn't boot, so I got anxious whether this ignoring might have caused this. Thanks.
    – VSRawat
    Feb 3, 2019 at 15:16

1 Answer 1

0

The warning most likely means that the partition table doesn't quite match the partitions themselves.

The partition table is a list; each partition is represented by a [start; end) range. It's possible for any entry to claim any range of the disk, e.g. partition 1 at the end, but partition 2 in the middle; it doesn't have to be strictly incrementing. (But it should be strictly incrementing, hence the "recommended order" warning.)

There are partitioning programs which can "sort" the table entries – for example, Linux gdisk and (if I recall correctly) recent versions of Linux fdisk. This doesn't require moving any of the actual data.

However, doing so might confuse existing Windows installations – I've noticed that they sometimes only "remember" the partition's number, not its unique ID, so if the Windows partition that was #3 suddenly becomes #2 or #4 in the list, it might stop booting. (It will not lose any data however, and the boot itself should be repairable using the recovery console in an install CD.)

The mismatch isn't actually a problem on its own, although it might indicate other problems; e.g. it might indicate that you've previously used a poorly written partitioning tool which just added new entries at the end instead of inserting them in their proper place. (Such as the very same fdisk or gdisk...) Sometimes this is even deliberate to avoid the same Windows-related boot problems.

In fdisk, if I remember correctly, the commands are x (expert menu), f (fix order), r (return), w (write). It's a very good idea to use p before and after to see the current table contents and even write down the exact start-end of every partition.

In gdisk the same is directly s (sort), w (write).

3
  • 1
    2) "the last partition has no partitions defined" is nonsensical. You don't define partitions inside other partitions. If it's a partition, then it is defined by itself. So if it shows up in list part, that means it's allocated. The OS doesn't care whether you've formatted it or not; maybe you want to use it for something else; it's still not "free". 3) No, "volumes" as well as "drive letters" are a Windows internal setting that has no relationship to the partition table. Feb 4, 2019 at 16:11
  • 1
    Again, the output of list volume is irrelevant here, because it doesn't actually correspond to the partition table. Only select disk <id> + list part is relevant. Feb 4, 2019 at 16:15
  • 1
    @VSRawat - Please update your question and provide all relevant information in the question body.
    – Ramhound
    Feb 8, 2019 at 3:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .