[[DW]-Hunter]

Raid?

[Quest_techie]

don't really see the purpose, I don't have anything that I'd die if I lost it that I can't just shove onto my external or onto another external if I run out of space, 20gig ide's are cheap now and passive cool usb hard drive enclosures may not be great for apps and things, but for backing stuff up, or moving data from one box to another, magic, plug and play magic

[S-99]

c:\ 12gb ntfs...windows installation
d:\ 20gb fat32...a partition on a different drive dedicated to program files not being run from the windows drive, and so that windows can bloat all it wants on it's own 12gb window of growing size...sometimes used as a backup partition
h:\ 130gb ext3...mainly where i install games, downloads, movies, backups, and best of all music (the 130gb and 20gb are on a 160gb hard drive, the other partitions belong to an 80gb hard drive)
j:\ 16gb ufs...for my desktopbsd installation, because pcbsd blows balls with its pbi bs
i:\ 47gb fat32...for storage of drivers and programs, also the main backup partition

Hmmm, partitioning IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING DW-HUNTER. If only you can just imagine what happens to hard drive when you have no partitions with windows and the ntfs filesystem (get a virus, forced to format, and lose all of your ****) My 130gb partition died because of that ****ty filesystem. I have switched to something quicker, reliable, with not file size limitations. That's right, i formatted my 130gb partition to ext3 A good decision, and i use it in windows all the time with ext2ifs.
http://www.fs-driver.org/
And who the hell here thinks it's a good idea to use fat32 for anything other than a usb flash drive? Fat32 is more reliable than ntfs but it's got that damned 4gb file size limitation to it. Hell, don't even use fat32 Ever so occasionally in life you deal with a file that is 4gb in size or bigger.
But why do i still use fat32 and ntfs? Ntfs seems to be more reliable on smaller partitions where you have windows installed, it's also faster than fat32, but it really seems that i can't install windows onto an ext3 filesystem. Fat32 is still reliable and on those partitions i have fat32 i am only ever backing up what the hell is on my bsd and windows desktops, as well as there designated purposes.
I use ext3 on the 130gb partition soley for reliability. I mean like i said, ntfs took a **** on me one day, and hey i lost everything, ntfs i don't know why, but it just doesn't seem to be a good idea for big partitions, also over the course of a year, my 130gb partition has not taken a **** again going with ext3 (i only had my data on the 130gb partition with ntfs for like 6months).

Other than that. Partitioning is a great way to utilize 100% of your hard drive, categorize, keep stuff safe, keep stuff separated, and in the event of an emergency, have extra places to back **** up at. I myself have never had a single problem with partitioning ever. It always works fine for me. The only hard drive i've ever had fail on me was an IBM deskstar 80gb, which failed due to mechanical reasons so bad it pulled IBM out of the hard drive business (i had an emachine at one point and i wondered my hard drive died after 3 months, until i found out the damn 80gb they gave me was an IBM deathstar). Since the emachine of years ago, i have my own custom built rig again. Partitioning yet again working like a charm

I know my hard drive set up may seem pretty ****ing crazy, but it's actually not. With adventures into higher capacity hard drives that's a different animal. I keep my OS's on a separate 80gb hard drive that's 5400rpms with each OS running on a partition of sufficient size with it's preferred file system, after that the 80gb drive contains a universal backup and storage partition (fat32 makes it universal because it works with any OS and it really creates ease with bsd and windows on the same drive).
Then comes the mighty 160gb hard drive that is 7200rpms. The 130gb partition has all of my games installed for bsd and windows to run freely as well as a place to put all of my media, it's a damn big partition and it's faster and more reliable with ext3 and doesn't have the dreaded 4gb file size limitation. Then comes the 20gb partition on that drive that is fat32 to make it more universal, and is the home for absolutely every program i install for windows (the idea was that windows can have the 80gb hard drive all to itself, and all of the loading for it's programs that i installed wouldn't come from the same drive, i don't know if it's a negligible idea), and is also another backup partition that both windows and bsd can access with the least ease.
I'd make everything ext3 if windows had support for it besides through something like ext2ifs. Hell fat32 is there for me when i don't have ext2ifs for windows, and then i just wouldn't have access to my games, movie, or music on the 130gb.

My hard drives and partitioning scheme is an elaborate plot out to get you But personally if my dad didn't get me a replacement hard drive for my 80gb ibm deathstar on my college computer, i wouldn't get much work done. The damn thing he got me was a 160gb wd caviar, then i scored an 80gb wd caviar for free. WTF am i suppposed to do with all of that space?
Originally i'd be just content with a 50gb drive, that's got enough space for what i want to do.
BUT PARTITIONING IS GOOD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE ONE HARD DRIVE!! IT IS TRIED, TRUE, AND NEVER POINTLESS!!

please someone tell me that the people who find partitioning pointless aren't the same people who defrag daily

[Nix]

For those who have had a bad time with FDisk, use Partition Magic, the boot floppy version.  It makes things go so much smoother, point and click what kind of partition you want and you'll have it in nothing flat.  I still use it today just for ease of use.  That, and once I have my partition layout set, I rarely change it unless I blank out the drive.  Only time I really do that is if I migrate to a larger disk.

NTFS>Ext3 in terms of file security in Windows.  Unless Ext3 allows for security descriptors in XP, I think NTFS is the best solution that gives you a good blend of security and performance. FAT/FAT32 is easy to get into during a catastrophic failure to get data out of a partition, in fact, it's just about cake.  But getting data off of an NTFS partition is a little trickier, although it can be done pretty easily with a bootup solution that allows you to get into NTFS.  I've demonstrated this using a BartPE disc. 

Oh yeah, defragging daily, unless you use Diskeeper, and absolutely have to have the "Set it and forget it" to run each time your computer goes idle, you're going to wear out your hard disk faster that way, with unnecessary reads and writes.  With diskeeper, a defrag a week is more than sufficient to keep everything in place, without making things get out of control.  Also, when you defrag this frequently, and this only really applies to Diskeeper, defrags take about ten minutes or so, instead of hours like it has in the past with built-in tools. 

I don't mean to pick on you, DW, but I'm still waiting to see you post a source of where partitioning is bad.  You've honestly got me interested, because all this time, throughout all my courses I've taken to get my IS degree, partitioning has always been an accepted way to segment data storage.  Cause if you heard it from word-of-mouth, don't believe the hype, friend. 

[S-99]

Ext3 does have file security. But largely to the nature of ext2ifs which makes accessing linux volumes in windows just as simple as going into my computer, there is a problem.
Windows linux volume readers can be written to either abide by the security, or ignore it. I know one reason i have ext2ifs is because it ignores file permissions in windows and makes accessing a linux volume just as easy i would my fat32 volumes. Pretty much the ext3 file securities are paid attention to if you have a linux operating system and a better windows-linux volume manager for windows.
File securities when running linux is a lot more protective than i find ntfs to be. Then again, it all depends on the software you have that is compliant with a file systems securities. Like you said with the bootdisk stuff, i can just as easily get into to any of my ntfs volumes using a mepis or knoppix livecd which make great rescue discs, but mepis is the only one that makes a good bootable linux os out of the two. From booting a livecd like the two mentioned, sure you can backup your **** from ntfs and even burn it to a cd if you have a computer with dual cd drives from the livecd. About the only thing you can't do with linux is have write capability to ntfs, but this gets remedied real fast if you use slackware vectorlinux. But you know even for not having write capability in linux concerning ntfs, i can still format the damn partition

So in my head it doesn't really matter. I have two operating systems that are a backdoor to each other. I'll stick with ext3, besides, ntfs was also developed by microsoft to also not need to ever be defragged, but you know microsoft just couldn't accomplish that with ntfs ever. It's still just as intelligent to defrag an ntfs partition as it is any other when necessary.
Besides, ntfs is really only good for the partition windows is installed on. Anything else concerning ntfs i would word with some warning that people perhaps should doubt it's dependability. I mean come on, a 130gb partition on xp sp2 which supports hard drives and partitions bigger than 127gb. After that my ****ing system at the time i had was a p4 machine 2.6ghz with a motherboard that was compatible with the drive capacities. In this pre-ext3 plight with the 130gb partition i blame ntfs.

On an even nicer note for partitioning. Download mepis or knoppix livecds. Good rescue discs that run the os straight from the cd and makes your system usable with much of the hardware working too. But anyway, mepis contains Qtparted. Of which i consider easier and better to use. Partitionmagic is so noobie

[Nix]

The only thing to really help on defragmentation would be if the filesystem was smart enough to not move files around whenever a file is in use.  That, and the use of block-suballocation.  With suballocation, you can store more data on those clusters that are partially taken up by a file, taking full advantage of the space available to you.  Makes data packing a lot tighter, on the same hand, you'd think that this would cause more problems concerning data loss.  Other than that, blame the OS for moving **** around whenever you don't want to. 

As far as a linux bootable CD, I've had a devil of a time finding one that works with my videocard.  I've got a Radeon 9800XT and Knoppix will refuse to give me a gui, ubuntu won't either, about the only distro that works for me is Fedora.  Of course I Could try Knoppix, install it, get it up in commandline mode, and manually configure X, but I'd just rather switch over to an nvidia video card.  Better linux support in the first place..

As far as mentioning partitionmagic, I mentioned it for the inexperienced.  I myself am comfortable using the tools provided with linux distros, and even the old aincent Fdisk for DOS.  PM works a charm for windows partitions, when you want that easy setup.  If I just need to quick-change geometry, I can load it up on my flash drive, edit, go take a shower and come back and its all done.  I don't have to grab a whole entire OS just to change the size of my disks.

[Quest_techie]

have you tried puppy linux? benefit to it is the session dvd\cd, also boot from flash, and you can download packages to add to it, maybe one has your driver

[S-99]

A good linux distro is mepis6. It's debian based so you can use apt-get commands. Also mepis6 uses the ubuntu repositories also. Ubuntu repositories for debian based systems is a good thing because part of one of the reasons ubuntu is so great because they have reliable packages. After that, mepis6 is just as useful as a knoppix cd, after that mepis is installable as opposed to knoppix which isn't meant for installation. Mepis also has a really good installer, choose your install partition and swap partition, copy the fs to the partition, it asks for whether or not you're using ati (fglrx) or nvidia (nvidia-glx) graphics. After that it asks for user creation and so on and what services you want. That's one reason i liked mepis because it made installing the graphics such an ease. I use to have a 9800pro radeon, actually for me it was a lot easier to install than nvidia drivers for linux.
In which anyone messing around with linux really need to learn about dpkg-reconfigure. It's a good wizard for reconfiguring xorg when you install new graphics drivers. Most of the time when new graphics drivers are installed, you have to change the graphics driver entry to the new one that was installed. I have to do this everytime i install nvidia-glx drivers, or else like you i'm stuck with console. Also dpkg-reconfigure is necessary for putting in your monitor information if you feel like doing something higher than 71hz and 1024x768x32.
And yes partition magic has that whole ease to it, but of course when it comes to redoing a hard drive i'm actually using the livecd to surf the net and use instant messenger temporarily if i'm doing system maintenance since a livecd doesn't require that you have a hard drive. Pretty much using qtparted from a linux livecd offers more opportunities than just booting up with partitionmagic, and that's why i like livecds. And yes there is puppy linux which is bootable from a whole array media like a flash card.

[Dylnuge]

i never said you have to, i just said its stupid to have them.

So, based on the same logic Karajorma used, you are essentialy also saying it is stupid to have extra drives. They are essentially equal.

Reasons for Partitioning:
1. Backups (500GB HDD becomes 250GB HDD with full constant backup using RAID Array)
2. Multi-Boots (Linux and Windows on same system)
3. Linux (Best to have /boot and /usr seperated from /, /etc sometimes also seperated, need a seperate swap partition)
4. Drive Maintniance (Partition, cleanup, and more: all faster if you need use only one drive)
5. Compatibility (File systems, One NTFS, one FAT32, one EXT3, one EXT2, and a Swap)
6. Saftey and Security (Can affect access records, for example, drive C used by all, drive D used by certian people, Drive E biometricly protected)

Reasons for Not:
Main Argument: Same stuff can be done with multiple drives, and a total drive failure would not cause loss of all files.

Which brings me to reason #7:
7. Cost (External Hard Drives about $1/GB, which comes to a costly $500 to make drives similar to a simple partitioning of the 500 GB already on the PC)

[Quest_techie]

you can get external hard drives MUCH more cheaply

eSATA is  Really good and you just have to pay for a drive, prolly a $30 enclosure and a ten dollar port thingie <plugs into board sata or sata controller, brings ports to your pci slots>

also, you could just go usb or firewire enclosure without the ten dollar thingie, works grandly with ide if you don't want fast, just need it for backup

I am an advocate of enclosures and eSATA

[CP5670]

1. Backups (500GB HDD becomes 250GB HDD with full constant backup using RAID Array)

This is not very useful. Disk failures are the main reason you want to have backups in the first place, and using a single drive in this way would heavily degrade write performance. Also, two 250GB drives are substantially cheaper than a 500GB one. You can generally buy three 250s for the same price as an equivalent 500.

I can see how partitions would be useful for Linux and multi-OS setups though. I don't use them myself (no particular reason to; just keep it to one per physical drive), but I probably would set them up if I had more than one OS loaded.

As far as a linux bootable CD, I've had a devil of a time finding one that works with my videocard.  I've got a Radeon 9800XT and Knoppix will refuse to give me a gui, ubuntu won't either, about the only distro that works for me is Fedora.  Of course I Could try Knoppix, install it, get it up in commandline mode, and manually configure X, but I'd just rather switch over to an nvidia video card.  Better linux support in the first place..

I have an ATI card too and the latest Knoppix has worked just fine on the one or two occasions I needed to use it.

[S-99]

Partitioned hard drives is necessary if you're advanced enough for the need to absolutely isolate stuff on your hard drive, and doing so in a way if you don't have access to a secondary hard drive. Partitioning is necessary for systems with more than one operating system (everyone here who doesn't like partitioning should stay far away from linux as to install a linux distribution you must create a partition on the hard drive called a swap drive which is for linux virtual memory). Then again people here who detest partitioning and run linux would be hypocrites
Anyway i have more than one  hard drive, and it  just makes my partitioning more sophisticated than before. And for anybody out there who formats a hard drive, yes plz take a deep look at the file system your going to format it with. Anyway, partitioning is reliable to say the least, but that's not the issue here. For a normal partitioner, it really doesn't matter if i have second hard drive. If one hard drive on my system fails, i still lose data i wanted to keep. So if you're going to have two hard drives make sure one is for OS's, and one is for your data. Which means if you're going to have one fail, take you're pic both have their benefits whether the data drive fails, or the OS drive fails.
Then again we all use magnetic storage. Not the best thing in the world, nor is flash based memory, about the best thing you can get really is optical storage (i'm waiting for that phase-change non-volatile memory to come out and completely replace flash memory). Since magnetic storage has it's limitations and more overly it's arguable dependability. What's the problem with partitioning since everyone in this thread keeps saying "what about a hard drive failure?" as if it's going to happen no matter what? That's about the only opposition that is offered. Those who have no partitions and one hard drive are more ****ed than if they didn't have partitions (you want intelligent data backup at least with one hard drive...make a partition...you'd be smart too). If you have more than one drive, ok, it's still intelligent to partition, that's if you want more boot drives, or absolute separation of files (partitioning offers more multiple boot options, absolute isolation (especially if you want to keep certain files from interacting with each other for whatever reason), and not to mention categorization).

[Scooby_Doo]

You want one good reason to partition? Ghost


Clone your os/app paritions and if you need nuke.... not a problem then 

[miskat]

Wait... partitioning is a bad idea?  How the hell did we all survive the YEARS before FAT32 when the max drive size was... what?  1024mb?  It's been awhile for me, so I don't remember the exact number, but hell, a partition is the same thing is a folder, guys. 

It's just that instead of it being a folder called c:\video_editing, c:\video_editing becomes a logical drive called d:\.  The file system damn near treats it the same, like a variable name.  d:\ goes to point A on drive 1.  c:\video_editing also points to point A on drive 1.  Actually, the advantage is that by using partitions you're limiting the area on the physical drive that the file system has to sift through to find your files; whereas in a folder on a non-partitioned drive the file data can be a bit... spread out... fragmenting, anyone?

Of course, this happens in a partition too, but things don't get spread AS FAR.

I find it very hard to believe that partitioning is bad for a drive when it was a necessity for so long.  Problem with it: IMO it's inconvenient.  I used to be HUGE on having a system partition and then a working partition... now I just go non-partitioned due mostly to laziness.

I've never had a drive fail... execpt that Seagate piece of crap that I dropped... but I think that that was probably my fault.  XD

Only reason IO can think of for a drive to be "strained" by partitioning is if you attempt to access more than one patition at a time... but then I would assume that the instructioned hitting the drive on the BUS would be prioritised by the drive controller chip and then you're not looking at a strain, just a bottleneck, a slow-down.

[Scooby_Doo]

I'd highly recommend partitions, throw windows/apps on one partition and your data on another.  The time saved in backing up and restoring will overwhelm any minut amount of time you save by having everything in one drive.

[[DW]-Hunter]

This topic is old why are we bringing it back up?

[miskat]

This is where I raise my hand and humbly apologize.

I followed a link to this off of the Turey's installer thread and replyied before having the brains to look at the last post date.  XD

But I replied mostly because I'm confused... but anyway... I don't want to beat a dead horse.  Sorry again, everyone.

*bows*

[S-99]

Partitioning wins!

[neoterran]

windows system on one partition, apps on another, storage on another, and another... done

[[DW]-Hunter]

OMFG STOP BRINGING UP OLD TOPICS.