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. You can disagree as much as you like, but with the size of drives and the current error rate of consumer hard drives it is not a question of 'if' but just a matter of 'when'.
