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