Fat32 partition size limit (OT in uk.d-i-y)

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:29:35 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:
[]
My OP concerns a large back-up disk. My rationale for splitting it into
a number of partitions is to reduce the risk of losing *all* my data if
one partition gets corrupted. I don't know whether that's valid or not.

I find it easier to believe a whole disk would die than that a single
partition would, but I don't know enough to bet money on that.

In hardware terms, I suspect you're right. However, in software terms,
it _is_ possible to screw up a partition. Although this is more likely
to happen with a system partition than a data one. I'd say there is -
arguably! - validity in partitioning your working disc into system and
data (apart from anything else, the image/clone of your _system_ then
doesn't take so long to make, so you might do it more often). For a disc
used entirely for backup purposes, there's probably less reason to
partition it.

However, my favored policy is to back up alternately to two different
drives, and have each connected only while its backup is in process.

Sounds good policy.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's an artist's duty to bite the hand that feeds him... but not too hard.
Grayson Perry, interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

In message , Rod Speed
writes:
[]
Johny B Good wrote
[]
Splitting a large HDD up into 2 or 3 partitions on a PC is well
worth doing,

Nope, its completely pointless.
[]
Not entirely. The reasons JBG give may or may not be valid, but to say
there is _never_ any point to it can't be correct.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's an artist's duty to bite the hand that feeds him... but not too hard.
Grayson Perry, interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

In message , Huge
writes:
On 2014-11-01, Mayayana wrote:
| Yes. Using Linux partions -- ext* -- for data can
| result in complications, so I just use FAT32.
|
| Jesus, but that's dumb.
|

Thus, FAT32 is a good solution for both Linux and
Windows.

FAT32 isn't a good solution for anything. Other than people too stupid
to work out how file protections work.

There's a difference between not being able to work it out, and not
seeing the necessity to bother. For most home users, the only advantage
of NTFS is the larger filesize limit, and the advantage of FAT32 is that
more (especially older) devices can use it. With the exception of large
video files (which are probably becoming commoner now), I suspect few
people will be bothered by the filesize limit; similarly, I suspect few
people will come across equipment that can only recognise FAT32 these
days.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's an artist's duty to bite the hand that feeds him... but not too hard.
Grayson Perry, interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

In message , Brian
Gregory writes:
On 30/10/2014 22:16, Lee wrote:


Any constructive comments will be greatly appreciated.

Unless you foresee that you will be using it with something that doesn't
support NTFS, I'd just repartition it as a single NTFS partition and be
done with it.

That's what I usually do.

Then I change the security on the partition so 'Everybody' has 'Full
Control' to make sure I'll always have write access even if my user
name isn't the same on all systems.

Is it just the filesize limit that makes it worth doing all that (i. e.
if you used FAT32 you wouldn't have to bother), or are there other
advantages you see to NTFS?

I guess the amount of effort is probably about the same, for someone
with an XP (or is it W2k?) or later Windows system: to make a large
FAT32 partition (which is natively universally accessible), you have to
remember where you put your big-FAT32-formatting utility; to make an
NTFS one, you have to mess about with the permissions as you describe
above. If I'm understanding you correctly, you only have to do it once
whichever system you go for.

Lately I've also been choosing a larger allocation block size than the
default 4K, hoping that this'll speed things up in some cases (I use
32K).

(Have you found any difference? [No axe to grind - just curious.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's an artist's duty to bite the hand that feeds him... but not too hard.
Grayson Perry, interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Johny B Good wrote

Splitting a large HDD up into 2 or 3
partitions on a PC is well worth doing,

Nope, its completely pointless.

Not entirely. The reasons JBG give may or may not be valid,

They arent valid.

but to say there is _never_ any point to it can't be correct.

It can with the specific case of a drive used
as the destination for backup being discussed.

I never said that about the general case, your
very selective quoting is very misleading.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
Huge wrote
Mayayana wrote

Yes. Using Linux partions -- ext* -- for data can result in
complications, so I just use FAT32.

Jesus, but that's dumb.

Thus, FAT32 is a good solution for both Linux and Windows.

FAT32 isn't a good solution for anything. Other than people too stupid
to work out how file protections work.

There's a difference between not being able to work it out, and not seeing
the necessity to bother.

Yes.

For most home users, the only advantage of NTFS is the larger filesize
limit,

That's overstated. The other obvious advantage is that its easier
to ensure that the kids can't bugger up what matters files wise too.

and the advantage of FAT32 is that more (especially older) devices can use
it.

Not convinced that many have much that cant use NTFS.

With the exception of large video files (which are probably becoming
commoner now),

Absolutely certainly are becoming commoner now.

I suspect few people will be bothered by the filesize limit;

Plenty are with downloadable video.

similarly, I suspect few people will come across equipment that can only
recognise FAT32 these days.

There more that cant write to NTFS, altho
certainly only a small minority use those.

Johny B Good wrote
Roger Mills wrote
Johny B Good wrote
Rod Speed wrote
J. P. Gilliver wrote

Why is scattered free space a problem ...

You end up with less space to write another backup to.

Wrong! Oh, so _very_ wrong!

Fragmentation only effects read/write
performance, not space utilisation.

I don't think he was talking about fragmentation - but rather about
having lots of small free spaces distributed across multiple partitions.
I'm not sure that it's a problem in my case, but it would in some cases
reduce the available space when working within a particular partition.

Yeah, you're right. I should have read it more carefully.
It looked at first glance like a reference to fragmentation.
It would seem I owe Rodders an apology. :-(

Accepted.

Splitting a large HDD up into 2 or 3
partitions on a PC is well worth doing,

I don't agree.

whether the OS is windows or a *nix distro, simply to ease maintenance

It actually makes maintenance more difficult, essentially
because its hard to get the OS partition size right so that
it doesn't become a pain in the arse in future when it
become clear that you got the initial size wrong and
its awkward to change the size later and you really
need to have a full image of the entire drive before
changing the partition size later for safety and few
have spare drives of the same size to do that with.

and reduce fragmentation induced performance fade
(particularly in a windows setup due to endless update file churn)

I just don't believe that fragmentation is a serious
problem anymore, essentially because its really only
the big media files that fragment that much and
fragmentation just isnt a problem with those because
the speed of access to those files is almost entirely
at the media play speed. Modern file systems don't
fragment at anything like the rate that the older ones
did and with modern fast seeking drives fragmentation
is nothing like the problem it once was either.

I almost never defrag drives anymore and never get
any useful change in performance when I do anymore
and I run my drives with very little free space on them
now, essentially because I don't have a separate PVR
anymore, its all done on the one main machine now.

but tends to be pointless on additional HDDs or external
backup drives unless there is some specific requirement.

I maintain that its counterproductive with the main boot drive too.

The main exception is with multi OS machines where it does make sense.

In this case, there really doesn't seem to any 'special requirement'
to split the drive into more than 1 partition space since the only
OSes it needs to work with can all access NTFS disk volumes anyway.

And with multiple partitions you inevitably get the free space
split over the separate partitions and so can end up with the
situation where there is enough free space on the drive for another
backup but cant do it because its split across multiple partitions.

Using seperate file folders to keep various backup groups seperated
is perfectly adequate for this task without the risk of running out of
space in one partition whilst another goes underutilsed.

Or use a proper backup app that keeps the backups
separated that way and can do incremental backups
and compression as well.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 19:51:08 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Nope, its completely pointless.
[]
Not entirely. The reasons JBG give may or may not be valid, but to say
there is _never_ any point to it can't be correct.

It's Rod; he's never right.