| 1 |
2016-09-01 12:01 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>: |
| 2 |
> On 01/09/2016 09:18, gevisz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>: |
| 4 |
>>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> [snip] |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>>>> Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive |
| 9 |
>>>> into smaller logical ones and why? |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> The only reason to partition a drive is to get 2 or more |
| 12 |
>>> smaller ones that differ somehow (size, inode ratio, mount options, etc) |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Go with no partition table by all means, but if you one day find you |
| 15 |
>>> need one, you will have to copy all your data off, repartition, and copy |
| 16 |
>>> your data back. If you are certain that will not happen (eg you will |
| 17 |
>>> rather buy a second drive) then by all means dispense with partitions. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> They are after all nothing more than a Microsoft invention from the 80s |
| 20 |
>>> so people could install UCSD Pascal next to MS-DOS |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> I definitely will not need more than one mount point for this hard drive |
| 23 |
>> but I do remember some arguments that partitioning a large hard drive |
| 24 |
>> into smaller logical ones gives me more safety in case a file system |
| 25 |
>> suddenly will get corrupted because in this case I will loose my data |
| 26 |
>> only on one of the logical partitions and not on the whole drive. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> Is this argument still valid nowadays? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That is the most stupid dumbass argument I've heard in weeks. |
| 31 |
> It doesn't even deserve a response. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Who the fuck is promoting this shit? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Even somebody in this thread (in addition to me and independent of me) |
| 36 |
made the same arguments. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
But I do not state anything, I am just asking. |
Archives