| 1 |
Am 07.09.2016 um 08:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 2 |
> On 07/09/2016 01:57, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 01.09.2016 um 11:01 schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 4 |
>>> On 01/09/2016 09:18, gevisz wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> [snip] |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it. |
| 10 |
>>>>> And a few more to mkfs it. |
| 11 |
>>>> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt |
| 12 |
>>>> that it will take seconds to create a full-fledged |
| 13 |
>>>> ext4 file system on these 5TB via USB2 connention. |
| 14 |
>>> Do it. Tell me how long it tool. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Discussing it without doing it and offering someone else's opinion is a |
| 17 |
>>> 100% worthless activity |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>>> Even more: my aquiantance from the Window world |
| 20 |
>>>> that recomended me this disc scared me that it may |
| 21 |
>>>> take days... |
| 22 |
>>> Mickey Mouse told me it takes microseconds. So what? |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> Do it. Tell me how long it took. |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>>>>> Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive |
| 27 |
>>>>>> into smaller logical ones and why? |
| 28 |
>>>>> The only reason to partition a drive is to get 2 or more |
| 29 |
>>>>> smaller ones that differ somehow (size, inode ratio, mount options, etc) |
| 30 |
>>>>> |
| 31 |
>>>>> Go with no partition table by all means, but if you one day find you |
| 32 |
>>>>> need one, you will have to copy all your data off, repartition, and copy |
| 33 |
>>>>> your data back. If you are certain that will not happen (eg you will |
| 34 |
>>>>> rather buy a second drive) then by all means dispense with partitions. |
| 35 |
>>>>> |
| 36 |
>>>>> They are after all nothing more than a Microsoft invention from the 80s |
| 37 |
>>>>> so people could install UCSD Pascal next to MS-DOS |
| 38 |
>>>> I definitely will not need more than one mount point for this hard drive |
| 39 |
>>>> but I do remember some arguments that partitioning a large hard drive |
| 40 |
>>>> into smaller logical ones gives me more safety in case a file system |
| 41 |
>>>> suddenly will get corrupted because in this case I will loose my data |
| 42 |
>>>> only on one of the logical partitions and not on the whole drive. |
| 43 |
>>>> |
| 44 |
>>>> Is this argument still valid nowadays? |
| 45 |
>>> That is the most stupid dumbass argument I've heard in weeks. |
| 46 |
>>> It doesn't even deserve a response. |
| 47 |
>>> |
| 48 |
>>> Who the fuck is promoting this shit? |
| 49 |
>>> |
| 50 |
>>> |
| 51 |
>> people who had to deal with corrupted filesystems in the past? |
| 52 |
>> |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
> The way to deal with the problem of fs corruption is to have reliable |
| 55 |
> tested backups. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> The wrong way to deal with the problem of fs corruption is to get into |
| 58 |
> cargo-cult manoeuvrers thinking that lots of little bits making a whole |
| 59 |
> is going to solve the problem. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> Especially when the part of the disk statistically most at risk is the |
| 62 |
> valuable data itself. OS code can be rebuilt easily, without backups |
| 63 |
> data can't. |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
the bigger the drive, the greater the chance of fs corruption. Just by |
| 67 |
statistics. Better one minor partition is lost than everything. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
You can disagree as much as you like, but with the size of drives and |
| 70 |
the current error rate of consumer hard drives it is not a question of |
| 71 |
'if' but just a matter of 'when'. |
Archives