Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcdc!hpfclp!diamant
From: diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Re^2: HP 7958S disk question
Message-ID: <7540036@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM>
Date: 26 Aug 89 04:16:41 GMT
References: <239@bnrunix.UUCP>
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 30

> 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