1 |
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:09:09 PM gevisz wrote: |
2 |
> 2016-09-01 11:54 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote: |
4 |
> >> > If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to |
5 |
> >> > repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just |
6 |
> >> > one partition). That's the only disadvantage I can think |
7 |
> >> > of. |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> That is exactly what I am afraid of! |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> So, the 20-years old rule of thumb is still valid. :( |
12 |
> >> |
13 |
> >> > I don't like partitions either (after some years, I |
14 |
> >> > always found that sizes don't match my requirements any |
15 |
> >> > more), |
16 |
> >> |
17 |
> >> And this is exactly the reason why I do not want to partition |
18 |
> >> my new hard drive! :) |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Have you considered LVM? You get the benefits of separate filesystems |
21 |
> > without the limitations of inflexible partitioning. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I am afraid of LVM because of the same reason as described below: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> returning to the "old good times" of MS DOS 6.22, I do remember that working |
26 |
> then on 40MB (yes, megabytes) hard drive I used some program that |
27 |
> compressed all the data before saving them on that hard drive. |
28 |
> Unfortunately, one day, because of the corruption, I lost all the data on |
29 |
> that hard drive. Since then, I am very much afraid of compressed or |
30 |
> encrypted hard drives. |
31 |
|
32 |
LVM doesn't *need* to do any of that. It will only do as much as you tell it |
33 |
to do. If you only want to use it as a way of reshaping relatively simple |
34 |
partitions, you can use it for that. |
35 |
|
36 |
Honestly, I tend not to create separate partitions for separate mount points |
37 |
these days. At least, not on personal systems. For servers, it's can be |
38 |
beneficial to have /var separate from /, or /var/log separate from /var, or |
39 |
/var/spool, or /var/lib/mysql, or what have you. But the biggest driver for |
40 |
that, IME, is if one of those fills up, it can't take down the rest of the |
41 |
host. |
42 |
|
43 |
In your case, I'd suggest using a single / filesystem. If it works, it works. |
44 |
If it doesn't, you'll know in the future where you need to be more flexible; |
45 |
there's no single panacea. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
:wq |