Partition Identification

[WAS_MI]

I recently acquired an HP Pavilion Notebook, Model 15t-au100 from an old friend from an old friend. My disk utility software,
DFSee, displays the following as the partitions:
|ID |ux|Dr|Type, description|Format |Related |VolumeLabel|OS2-LVM/BM / GPT| Size MiB |
+--</dev/sda GPT disk 1>--------+--------+-----------<Model=ST2000LM003 HN>-------+
|01 | | |Fsp + GPT hdr/pta|-- -- --|-- -- --|- - - - - -| | 1.0|
|01 | 1| |EFI System (ESP)|FAT32 |MSDOS5.0|NO NAME |EFI system parti| 260.0|
|02 | 2| |MS Reserved (MSR)| |Windows | |Microsoft reserv| 16.0|
|03 | 3| |Windows BasicData|NTFS |Win NT |Windows |Basic data parti| 134394.0|
|04 | | |FreeSpace GPT |-- -- --|-- -- --|- - - - - -| | 1758580.0|
|04 | 4| |Windows Recovery |NTFS |Win NT | |Basic data parti| 980.0|
|05 | 5| |Windows BasicData|NTFS |Win NT |RECOVERY |Basic data parti| 13493.0|
|08 | | |Fsp + GPT pta/hdr|-- -- --|-- -- --|- - - - - -| | 5.1|

As I want to delete unnecessary partition, so as to add new partitions for applications and another OS, can anyone tell me what are
sda4 and sda5? DFSee, at least, considers them BOTH to be Recovery partitions. (I do not need any recovery partition as I have
already used DFSee to backup the partition information and images of all of the partitions, including sda4 and sda5.)

Any advice on the difference between them, as well as the need for either of them, will be most appreciated.

[VH2000]

---

@WAS_MI wrote:

|04 | 4| |Windows Recovery |NTFS |Win NT | |Basic data parti| 980.0|

This is the Windows Recovery Partition for emergency recoveries with the

id="de94bba4-06d1-4d40-a16a-bfd50179d6ac"

Do not delete this and it will be updated by Windows from time to time. (WinRe.wim)

---

@WAS_MI wrote:

I
|05 | 5| |Windows BasicData|NTFS |Win NT |RECOVERY |Basic data parti| 13493.0|

To be deleted. Contains only useless HP stuff.

Delete with >>diskpart<<

..

sel par 5 (check if it is the same number in diskpart.)

delete par override

[WAS_MI]

Thanks MUCH for the advice.  Glad an expert saw my post.

I had "leaped before I looked" - only later thinking of this community for an answer - after I had already deleted sda5.  Though I had already saved the partition information and an image of sda5 (to be safe), I now don't have to worry about restoring it.

One further question.  Can sda4 be moved contiguous to sda3 without confusing Win 10?  Or is a new location likely to prevent the updating of it?  (I rebooted Win 10 after the sda5 deletion and it booted fine, but an EOL notice offered an upgrade, a process that apparently went on for a number of hours, so that sda4 is now new.)

I probably won't be too handicapped by creating partitions in the Free Space between sda3 and sda4, and now in the succeeding space previously occupied by sda5, but it would seem simpler if the Free Space was all contiguous.

[VH2000]

You can delete partition 4 as well, because you C-Drive is big enough. Windows shrinks will repair that in the next update.

Or:

Run diskpart cmd (admIn)

create partition primary size=800
format quick fs=ntfs label="Recovery"
assign letter="R"
set id="de94bba4-06d1-4d40-a16a-bfd50179d6ac"
gpt attributes=0x8000000000000001

exit

Run update an MS will fix it. 

then you have enough free space

[WAS_MI]

Thanks for all the time you have spent on my questions.  Your advice has been invaluable.

Hmm, so the 134 Gb is enough after all for Win 10?  When I shrunk it I feared that perhaps I had gone too far, even though it still shows more than 30% unallocated sectors in it.  (I know I didn't need a lot as I have  since the days of OS/2 Warp 3 always, both for it and Windows, created numerous separate partitions for applications and data, and always try to avoid installing applications in the OS partition.  Still since my primary OSs are ArcaOS (the current distribution of OS/2) and Linux, I was apprehensive I might box in Win 10 too much, w/ the new partitions.)  In addition to your advice that "Windows shrinks will repair that in the next update", it seemed that in my short review of the Expand option though <diskmgmt.msc> it was possible to add further room in non-contiguous sectors.  (I am familiar w/ this LVM concept from OS/2 though I have never tried it.)  So, I will reply on your advice on the sufficiency of the size of sda3.

I have printed out your message and also copied your instructions to a TXT file on a flash drive.  I then will proceed.

Again, thanks much for all the help!