Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:18:48 -0600 From: @lbutlr <kremels@kreme.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: (very OT) Ideal partition schemes (history of partitioning) Message-ID: <AF89C1A4-FC9C-4065-B571-067BC2D0F69D@kreme.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGBxaXkf53K4EHtq9cDaRm3MOZZixyBq-aQfZ7upHo-wUwrmCg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGBxaXkf53K4EHtq9cDaRm3MOZZixyBq-aQfZ7upHo-wUwrmCg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 Aug 2020, at 21:08, Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@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, 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AF89C1A4-FC9C-4065-B571-067BC2D0F69D>