(very OT) Ideal partition schemes (history of partitioning)
galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu
Sun Aug 30 13:09:53 UTC 2020
> On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:18 AM, @lbutlr <kremels at kreme.com> wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2020, at 21:08, Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also why are partitioned need at all? (both currently and historically)
> They are not needed now, and I don't think they provide any benefit, really. Sure, you can do a multiple OS setup on a single drive with partitions, but this is quite risky if Windows is involved which is the main reason people want to do this. It's better to have separated physical drives.
> Historically they were quite important because partitions could fail without the disk failing,
Would you mind to elaborate how specifically partition could fail without the disk failing.
> and restoring a partition is obviously much faster than restoring a whole drive. That's not much of a reason now, if there's some hardware issue with a drive, you throw it out and replace it as drives do not cost thousands of dollars. (Or at least you take it out of the role of booting and maybe throw it into a backup rotation).
> The other cats just think he's a tosser. --Neil Gaiman
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions