Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am 08.09.2016 um 00:47 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On 08/09/2016 00:12, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am 07.09.2016 um 08:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>>> On 07/09/2016 01:57, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>>> Am 01.09.2016 um 11:01 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>>>>> On 01/09/2016 09:18, gevisz wrote:
>>>>>> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>:
>>>>>>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
>>>>>>> And a few more to mkfs it.
>>>>>> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt
>>>>>> that it will take seconds to create a full-fledged
>>>>>> ext4 file system on these 5TB via USB2 connention.
>>>>> Do it. Tell me how long it tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussing it without doing it and offering someone else's opinion
>>>>> is a
>>>>> 100% worthless activity
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even more: my aquiantance from the Window world
>>>>>> that recomended me this disc scared me that it may
>>>>>> take days...
>>>>> Mickey Mouse told me it takes microseconds. So what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do it. Tell me how long it took.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive
>>>>>>>> into smaller logical ones and why?
>>>>>>> The only reason to partition a drive is to get 2 or more
>>>>>>> smaller ones that differ somehow (size, inode ratio, mount
>>>>>>> options, etc)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go with no partition table by all means, but if you one day find
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> need one, you will have to copy all your data off, repartition,
>>>>>>> and copy
>>>>>>> your data back. If you are certain that will not happen (eg you
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> rather buy a second drive) then by all means dispense with
>>>>>>> partitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are after all nothing more than a Microsoft invention from
>>>>>>> the 80s
>>>>>>> so people could install UCSD Pascal next to MS-DOS
>>>>>> I definitely will not need more than one mount point for this
>>>>>> hard drive
>>>>>> but I do remember some arguments that partitioning a large hard
>>>>>> drive
>>>>>> into smaller logical ones gives me more safety in case a file system
>>>>>> suddenly will get corrupted because in this case I will loose my
>>>>>> data
>>>>>> only on one of the logical partitions and not on the whole drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this argument still valid nowadays?
>>>>> That is the most stupid dumbass argument I've heard in weeks.
>>>>> It doesn't even deserve a response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who the fuck is promoting this shit?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> people who had to deal with corrupted filesystems in the past?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The way to deal with the problem of fs corruption is to have reliable
>>> tested backups.
>>>
>>> The wrong way to deal with the problem of fs corruption is to get into
>>> cargo-cult manoeuvrers thinking that lots of little bits making a whole
>>> is going to solve the problem.
>>>
>>> Especially when the part of the disk statistically most at risk is the
>>> valuable data itself. OS code can be rebuilt easily, without backups
>>> data can't.
>>>
>>
>> the bigger the drive, the greater the chance of fs corruption. Just by
>> statistics. Better one minor partition is lost than everything.
>
> What are the statistical chances of that one minor partition being the
> one that gets corrupted? Statistically the odds are very small.
>
> Think about it, if the minor partition is say 5% of the disk and if
> all other things are exactly equal, the odds are 1 in 20.
>
> Apart from inherent defects in the drive itself, the sectors that are
> more prone to failing are those that are read the most and to a larger
> extent those that are written the most.
>
> What is read the most? OS and Data
> What is written the most? Data
> What has by far the greatest likelihood of suffering fs corruption? Data

and that is why spreading data over several partitions is not a bad idea.