Am 08.09.2016 um 00:47 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > On 08/09/2016 00:12, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> Am 07.09.2016 um 08:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon: >>> On 07/09/2016 01:57, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>>> Am 01.09.2016 um 11:01 schrieb Alan McKinnon: >>>>> On 01/09/2016 09:18, gevisz wrote: >>>>>> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>>> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it. >>>>>>> And a few more to mkfs it. >>>>>> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt >>>>>> that it will take seconds to create a full-fledged >>>>>> ext4 file system on these 5TB via USB2 connention. >>>>> Do it. Tell me how long it tool. >>>>> >>>>> Discussing it without doing it and offering someone else's opinion >>>>> is a >>>>> 100% worthless activity >>>>> >>>>>> Even more: my aquiantance from the Window world >>>>>> that recomended me this disc scared me that it may >>>>>> take days... >>>>> Mickey Mouse told me it takes microseconds. So what? >>>>> >>>>> Do it. Tell me how long it took. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive >>>>>>>> into smaller logical ones and why? >>>>>>> The only reason to partition a drive is to get 2 or more >>>>>>> smaller ones that differ somehow (size, inode ratio, mount >>>>>>> options, etc) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Go with no partition table by all means, but if you one day find >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> need one, you will have to copy all your data off, repartition, >>>>>>> and copy >>>>>>> your data back. If you are certain that will not happen (eg you >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> rather buy a second drive) then by all means dispense with >>>>>>> partitions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are after all nothing more than a Microsoft invention from >>>>>>> the 80s >>>>>>> so people could install UCSD Pascal next to MS-DOS >>>>>> I definitely will not need more than one mount point for this >>>>>> hard drive >>>>>> but I do remember some arguments that partitioning a large hard >>>>>> drive >>>>>> into smaller logical ones gives me more safety in case a file system >>>>>> suddenly will get corrupted because in this case I will loose my >>>>>> data >>>>>> only on one of the logical partitions and not on the whole drive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this argument still valid nowadays? >>>>> That is the most stupid dumbass argument I've heard in weeks. >>>>> It doesn't even deserve a response. >>>>> >>>>> Who the fuck is promoting this shit? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> people who had to deal with corrupted filesystems in the past? >>>> >>>> >>> The way to deal with the problem of fs corruption is to have reliable >>> tested backups. >>> >>> The wrong way to deal with the problem of fs corruption is to get into >>> cargo-cult manoeuvrers thinking that lots of little bits making a whole >>> is going to solve the problem. >>> >>> Especially when the part of the disk statistically most at risk is the >>> valuable data itself. OS code can be rebuilt easily, without backups >>> data can't. >>> >> >> the bigger the drive, the greater the chance of fs corruption. Just by >> statistics. Better one minor partition is lost than everything. > > What are the statistical chances of that one minor partition being the > one that gets corrupted? Statistically the odds are very small. > > Think about it, if the minor partition is say 5% of the disk and if > all other things are exactly equal, the odds are 1 in 20. > > Apart from inherent defects in the drive itself, the sectors that are > more prone to failing are those that are read the most and to a larger > extent those that are written the most. > > What is read the most? OS and Data > What is written the most? Data > What has by far the greatest likelihood of suffering fs corruption? Data
and that is why spreading data over several partitions is not a bad idea.
