paul@mecazh.UUCP (Paul Breslaw) (08/22/89)
> 7.0 is planned to bring the 300 and 800 much closer together, but the > match is not absolute. Sorry Roger, but you've struck on one of the few > exceptions: Disk partitions on the 300 are not planned. (If it's any > consolation, though, we're not taking them out of the 800.) Unix has sensibly partitioned disks since the PDP-11 days. It allows existing physical disks to be logically split up according to the needs of ones users. Big disks are more economical than small ones, but small file systems are more manageable than large ones - particularly in view of the current brain-damaged HP 1/4" cartridge philosophy. If my users requirements change, HP presumably would like me to buy new disks. This really is one of the worst decisions I have heard in a long time. Please reconsider it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paul Breslaw | telephone : 41 1 362 2040 Mecasoft SA | e-mail : mcvax!cernvax!mecazh!paul Guggachstrasse 10 | 8057 Zurich | SWITZERLAND | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant) (08/26/89)
> Big disks are more economical than small ones, > but small file systems are more manageable than large ones - particularly > in view of the current brain-damaged HP 1/4" cartridge philosophy. Why do you say that? I have always found partitions to be annoying and have tried to configure systems with as few partitions as possible (1 being the ideal number). Partitions can cause you to run out of disk space even when the disk has plenty of space (just in the wrong partitions). I use this philosophy with physical disks too. I always try to get a single large disk rather than a few small ones (this is not a cost issue -- this is to avoid partitioning the filesystem). So, I'm curious why you consider small filesystems to be more manageable than large? I'm also not sure I understand your comment about the tape cartridges. Is this the fact that you can only fit 60Mb on a single uncompressed 16 track 1/4 cartridge? If so, I don't see that partitioning helps that any. It's not that difficult to set up your backups to handle certain parts of the filesystem rather than the whole thing. It doesn't require partitions to do that. By the way, I had nothing to do with decision about whether partitions are supported on the series 300. I'm just curious what benefit you see in them. John Diamant Software Engineering Systems Division Hewlett-Packard Co. Internet: diamant@hpfclp.sde.hp.com Fort Collins, CO UUCP: {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant
rjn@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Bob Niland) (08/27/89)
re: "I'm also not sure I understand your comment about the tape cartridges.
Is this the fact that you can only fit 60Mb on a single uncompressed 16
track 1/4 cartridge? If so, I don't see that partitioning helps that
any."
If you keep your partition sizes under 67 Mbytes (or 134 for the 9145A),
you can make "image" backups of each filesystem. The random/re-writeable
feature of "brain-damaged" HP tape drives then permits you to access your
backup tapes by *mounting* them as filesystems. QIC drives can't do this.
Personally, the annoyance of small partitions is not offset by this
recovery advantage.
Regards, Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland rjn%hpfcrjn@hplabs.HP.COM 3404 East Harmony Road
[hplabs|hpu...!hpfcse]!rjn Ft Collins CO 80525-9599law@udel.EDU (Jeff Law) (08/28/89)
In article <JV.89Aug28092555@mhres.mh.nl> jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans) writes: >In article <7540036@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant) writes: > ... Partitions can cause you to run out of disk > space even when the disk has plenty of space (just in the wrong > partitions). ... > >Right. But partitions (or separated disks) can also separate critical >filesystems (e.g. /, /usr) from less-critical filesystems (e.g. >/usr/spool) thus preventing them to overflow due to erroneous >(malacious?) actions which should normally only affect the other >filesystems. also partitions help separate users. specifically we tend to partition undergrads, grads, faculty/staff, administrative users into different partitions, that way people can only blame their peers (or themselves) for a lack of space, it also prevents a single user from sucking up ALL available space (and we have users that would if they had access to more media) Jeff of course if you have and use quotas this doesnt make a whole lot of difference -- University of Delaware PHONE: (302)-451-8005 or (302)-451-6339 ARPA: law@udel.EDU, UUCP: ...!<your_favorite_arpa_gateway>!udel.edu!law
jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans) (08/28/89)
In article <7540036@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant) writes:
... Partitions can cause you to run out of disk
space even when the disk has plenty of space (just in the wrong
partitions). ...
Right. But partitions (or separated disks) can also separate critical
filesystems (e.g. /, /usr) from less-critical filesystems (e.g.
/usr/spool) thus preventing them to overflow due to erroneous
(malacious?) actions which should normally only affect the other
filesystems.
But of course, this medal has (at least) two sides...
Johan
--
Johan Vromans jv@mh.nl via internet backbones
Multihouse Automatisering bv uucp: ..!{mcvax,hp4nl}!mh.nl!jv
Doesburgweg 7, 2803 PL Gouda, The Netherlands phone/fax: +31 1820 62944/62500
------------------------ "Arms are made for hugging" -------------------------rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason) (08/30/89)
> of course if you have and use quotas this doesnt make a whole lot of > difference If you had quotas, would there still be a need/use for partitions?