2016-09-01 12:01 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>: > 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] > >>>> 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?
Even somebody in this thread (in addition to me and independent of me) made the same arguments. But I do not state anything, I am just asking.
