Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcdc!rer
From: rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER(?)
Message-ID: <5570633@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: 14 May 91 23:06:02 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.204425.8682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: HP Fort Collins, Co.
Lines: 25

jim sadler> And I still don't understand it.  Why wouldn't a
jim sadler> workstation want the flexability to chose partitions if it
jim sadler> is appropriate for their situation/application ?

Not that I'm to blame for not having partitions on workstations, but
I've never seen any real benefit.  I've seen lots of problems result
from fixed system partitions filling up and having to be tinkered with
to recover.

There have been things that HP-UX lacked in the past, like ARPA
services, NFS, etc, all of which we now have.  I missed those terribly,
so I consider myself to be realistic in my expectations.  But I've never
had partitions on my workstation and I've never felt like I was missing
out on anything (other than the missed pain of outgrown disk partitions,
which I've managed to suplant with the pain of outgrown disks).

Given that many of our workstations are managed by the using engineer,
who mostly wants HP to simplify her life, and that many more of them are
diskless and unaffected by partitions vs.  non-partitions, ...

What IS the big advantage to partitions on a workstation?

Rob

"Yes, I work for HP, but ignore what I say here:  it's strictly my own."