From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-173017-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 549A8138330
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CD2821C127;
Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:09:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-it0-f67.google.com (mail-it0-f67.google.com [209.85.214.67])
(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 196BF21C08C
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:09:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f67.google.com with SMTP id i184so5035616itf.3
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 02:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=xASVObhNt4b/EAr5txY+66JfVlTEXLprcjszlozCGgA=;
b=tV7MKKIUbs5ONXmQO9t3QCPmdEBvOS9Ypn88iskrt8MkeEhOAtZovLq9jR4I1qGoG8
2p8u1/lB9AVf0oAiedbAxXmLj0AOQSOQJLm0YRrvzm5bUioWo0PTN0EEKgy6PQawBcau
kaAmuY/UXepStLnLoq9VjV8Sup5cuPS9kjMyxVOLQ8lKpCo5uBIacPHl81jSEOaaox9t
/3h/ccoKAwAlUbmc5JsnApYwAZAa+lnczHuaiEjE3Ueo4h87iR6ZNuU1lIEjNAK5ZLdu
BwqLq6Lbuqh/eyfAQkQ4HSzE43nIdkRUETklaS0VokQekK8fg4eag5r6MZtojL/xpvqY
DslA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=xASVObhNt4b/EAr5txY+66JfVlTEXLprcjszlozCGgA=;
b=BVuTVZaqu9BvoJoxMThOZifDE0Z5SkIB+2MEaUbbsKaV8dKFoymIKX+5f7/THuSYbu
M1Yvxh4fp5xIVvvyGxmi0svu4iEd1SQa7S1isTSjAefCmKik7gqpIragzCXXOQ46DovU
PuWwvMXglLXjmnmuCkYaNvixeKS/mICfhuHpo9f5Uli6latuRSNUu0VKOwAfbBpuPCcU
kxQSQ2UAV9n5htMumFrjB6VItQ9JSJp6Q4Os3yEM+QewcuLSB4Sbo4S/UOdSh2auUQqI
kNvjfdoZSNl6586jVUbTKolKkRpxCYgqU/sB6Z9IjhX/+gFDUxHRJ37WyiZ+rbizmw1t
D/fQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN25G4Z2nR8rUhfv1JGBCCZnhh8shpHymNVxGncvX0r3m9t4NQB6BgI4PVRUq9TdFJ5NaBRPyq+RUwJ4Q==
X-Received: by 10.36.120.197 with SMTP id p188mr18620560itc.44.1472720950087;
Thu, 01 Sep 2016 02:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
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
Received: by 10.107.140.149 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 02:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160901095407.5d687e41@digimed.co.uk>
References: <CA+t6X7eWHXjHa6Gy+kXAS5g0szz_RP+kawOV_Rd4vseA+9j=rA@mail.gmail.com>
<57C7D92A.20109@hanft.de> <CA+t6X7d1t+wFGG18fFKGmSXpRF9kPyHbAu_ktcehZF0Jj2rv+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20160901095407.5d687e41@digimed.co.uk>
From: gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:09:09 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+t6X7cMR+qrbgMeeXPcc3RnUYKemKMk1OF7d0Pdpr-C0a27RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?
To: "gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org" <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: f21d10bd-83a0-4151-8d9e-b811570753c2
X-Archives-Hash: fe6016e8a5dc9bc1da3853d89ac94a16
2016-09-01 11:54 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
>> > repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just
>> > one partition). That's the only disadvantage I can think
>> > of.
>>
>> That is exactly what I am afraid of!
>>
>> So, the 20-years old rule of thumb is still valid. :(
>>
>> > I don't like partitions either (after some years, I
>> > always found that sizes don't match my requirements any
>> > more),
>>
>> And this is exactly the reason why I do not want to partition
>> my new hard drive! :)
>
> Have you considered LVM? You get the benefits of separate filesystems
> without the limitations of inflexible partitioning.
I am afraid of LVM because of the same reason as described below:
returning to the "old good times" of MS DOS 6.22, I do remember that working
then on 40MB (yes, megabytes) hard drive I used some program that compressed
all the data before saving them on that hard drive. Unfortunately, one day,
because of the corruption, I lost all the data on that hard drive. Since then,
I am very much afraid of compressed or encrypted hard drives.
> Neil Bothwick
>
> For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the
> quality of life, please press three.