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? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
