Hmmm. I'd say the exact opposite: why use smaller partitions when you
can have one large one. It all depends on your application, but over
the years I've found that no matter how carefully you plan your
partitions, sooner or later you'll bump your head against their
limits. At work I deal with 100+ GB RAID partitions which still
ultimately end up being too small...
I don't see that backups are an issue, since the # tapes depends on
the amount of data, not on your partitions; and since you can backup
directories on a partition just like you would smaller partitions. And
if you have backups, you don't need to worry about your partition
dying... :)
-- Alex
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 05:46:25PM -0700, Ken Wilson wrote:
| Why go with such big partitions when well planned out smaller ones will
| suffice. I'd hate to think of what it would take in the way of tapes to
| back up a 30G partition. And how much data do you lose if the
| partition, for some reason, decides to become inaccessible.
|
| Ken Wilson
| First Law of Optimisation: The speed of a non-working program is
| irrelevant
| (Steve Heller, 'Efficient C/C++ Programming')
