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
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'.
I don't disagree with you. I'm disagreeing with cargo cult mentality
that dividing a disk up into lots of smaller partitions somehow
magically confers significant safety margins of some magical kind. Go
read the OPs opening statement again, he's quoting a friend from 20
years ago and the statement consists entirely of woo-woo magic
hand-wavey statements, the kind of shit I have to deal with every day
from twits with just enough IQ to read executive white papers.
Yes, drives fail. Yes, consumer drives are crap. With 3TB now being
common place and prices plunging, we have 20G or so for OS and 2980GB
full of data. That 20G is so small and immaterial in terms of risk we
can just disregard it and assume the only thing that can be damaged is
2980G of data.
Solution: back up the whole damn lot properly and forget what we did 20
years ago. That was farting in a breeze, nowadays it's farting in a
hurricane.
