In a word, 'history'.Just out of curiosity, why do you put each puppy on a separate partition?
I started with Puppy as a Windows-user so each new Pup was given its own partition (it's own "C:/ drive"). And also from my Windows hang-over, I thought Full installs were likely to be better. And finding out a hard-drive could have 15 partitions (4 primary of which one was able to be extended with logical partitions up to the MS limit), I had formatted the two drives in my computers this way. These Full-Pup partitions are about 4GB each.
Today, I'm now comfortable to use new Puppies as Frugals so I can optimise my desired applications into one big sfs being used (shared) by each Frugal Pup. Much easier and quicker to see if a new Pup will do what I'd like with the applications sfs, compared to the Full route with applications tediously added one-by-one, be it via pets or links to these expanded packages on my main data partition.
I have three Frugals-only partitions at present, each about 30GB. One for the newer 32-bit Pups (presently with about twenty Pups, rapidly being taken over with my own makepups), one partition with older 32-bit Pups (about 40 maximum - I occasionally cull the very old ones as not every kernel 2.something Pup now runs all the wanted applications), and the third Frugals-partition is for 64-bit Pups (about ten) which I don't use much as my big sfs is based on 32-bit packages, and I find 32-bit is fast enough for what I mostly do on this 2005 vintage desktop.
If I had to begin again with a new computer, I'd probably not bother with so many small partitions for Full Pups, and maybe set up Frugals partitions for each breed of Pup (e.g. Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Other) to handle the few differences that each brings to Puppy that requires tweaking to get certain applications running.
But at present, I'm still trapped within my 'history' .
David S.