From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-173188-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CF28138330
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 21:41:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FA09E0AD2;
Thu, 8 Sep 2016 21:41:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D723AE0A86
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 21:40:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 199so1313724wma.1
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=6Mu9eJMS0TgC2emEOU+H546yle5N+E80yUqxeDipiDs=;
b=NV9vjEvS5iSGi9aqUyrFQXJWUWLmQ+lNQY+AqwPLeF5mx8/0weDzZBu8T1QM/gKAev
b7vY21HTWYZuBh1B6Ei91ONQUxYc4ySazlPpr1zt9Fu86mSLWUmvLAPuQ1rf1fPwMXPV
TL60vnbMdU1nMrnlIFbgkhy7vge3JHihBtDtii1l76nKvMdrVVMN/S4jpVP9XCHN+56j
lVqEc8WwmbV871pl3No7j6S8RV1lGhJiGx9ghABUwVFJrl6aGrLuwjoaPm3BJzf14+cY
5lyBpfG/56OdogSY1aji8qXnexM9s1cV9Q4L1B/BMSUHnjnp1VjCaIBxPEHrCE74IrfX
HsBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=6Mu9eJMS0TgC2emEOU+H546yle5N+E80yUqxeDipiDs=;
b=PwnbW/Nae/Tp8ygnT+iwfwERsLElOdGw9KkEqJwTS8p4+JN764rQwfUIW2WCp4HprY
9ZQ3G2Wc8sBAfgH9VTqcH7biRiOyjRgh2AUUy17JtNmFcnQ1jUOUrGAPwRpa3F9ZUgKC
ly+GMx6r7mVAVdivKeyYsGkrdievL3KoPjhUkLar80XrM01nDvhPwBy/WhpzUt2hTv/D
u1eGvHfrzlmXm9fbVEODyHi9LTMdmzpzJ42EdoDy5mcSrMoKI2s1/ik3693WRJ/N1U/O
JIIzIaJU+FW53Q/cMLN2wDiDZXb6nCh6pFGRPfmLRD2wKO0MCNHRJm0lgc2MAoKcmanp
S9Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOL/fDYnLY7m0uBWGrNtNeVXK3qPCOU8hVFWcrEvlthXixs/XayLSVNSUmLrCPuJA==
X-Received: by 10.194.123.35 with SMTP id lx3mr96321wjb.126.1473370858146;
Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (p4FC10ADF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.193.10.223])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c65sm82000wme.10.2016.09.08.14.40.56
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard
drive?
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
References: <CA+t6X7eWHXjHa6Gy+kXAS5g0szz_RP+kawOV_Rd4vseA+9j=rA@mail.gmail.com>
<7d89dbe6-6b4d-7812-7d88-edb87b0922e0@gmail.com>
<CA+t6X7cT5a8pAVTP_9gWTgsOaJ9WdmA3krm3DMj6GcKpc2C9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<9db64918-958c-3f7e-50ef-3e7a2ab5f5c6@gmail.com>
<57CF57D7.3090405@googlemail.com>
<556c1f0a-2d9b-1d3b-c7d3-7e5a29c7f030@gmail.com>
<57D090B7.1070501@googlemail.com>
<4e78d9cf-9bdc-07d8-81c6-afa3f9850924@gmail.com>
From: Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <57D1DAF1.6020806@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 23:41:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.7.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4e78d9cf-9bdc-07d8-81c6-afa3f9850924@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: a0970610-6302-4f2f-b59f-cc101af56da5
X-Archives-Hash: 3a45fc5e02a91f1a5575485d824f5a68
Am 08.09.2016 um 00:47 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> 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.mckinnon@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
and that is why spreading data over several partitions is not a bad idea.