| 1 |
On 01/09/2016 10:49, gevisz wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2016-09-01 10:30 GMT+03:00 Matthias Hanft <mh@×××××.de>: |
| 3 |
>> gevisz wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> But what are disadvantages of not partitioning a big |
| 6 |
>>> hard drive into smaller logical ones? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to |
| 9 |
>> repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just |
| 10 |
>> one partition). That's the only disadvantage I can think |
| 11 |
>> of. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That is exactly what I am afraid of! |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So, the 20-years old rule of thumb is still valid. :( |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
No, it is not valid, and it is not true. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Data corruption on-disk does not by and large (unless you are very |
| 20 |
unlucky) corrupt file systems. It corrupts files. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Secondly, by and large, most people have all the files they really care |
| 23 |
about on one partition, called DATA or similar. Everything else except |
| 24 |
your data can usually be reconstructed, especially the OS itself. You |
| 25 |
probably store all that data in one volume simply because it makes |
| 26 |
logical sense to do so. Data is read and written far more than anything |
| 27 |
else on your disk so if you are unlucky enough to suffer volume |
| 28 |
corruption it's likely to be on a) the biggest volume and b) the busiest |
| 29 |
volume. In both cases it is your data, meaning your data is what is |
| 30 |
exposed to risk and everything else not so much. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yes, this is a real factor you mention. It is detectable and |
| 33 |
measureable. It's also minute and statistically irrelevant if you |
| 34 |
haven't dealt with environmental factors that cause data damage (dodgy |
| 35 |
ram, cables, psus, over-temps, brownouts). If those things happen, and |
| 36 |
they WILL happen, you are 10-20 times at least more likely to lose your |
| 37 |
data than anything else, no matter how you partitioned the disk. |
Archives