On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 12:09, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:41:08PM -0600, Phil Mendelsohn wrote: > > I don't think the backup thing is wise -- put it on other media. And > > I *do* know what distro, etc. Anyway, with multiple disks, you can > > backup and reformat faster. > > > > Partitions: 0 Multiple disks: 2 > > My points on Why Partitions are Good Things have all been made > already, but I haven't seen anyone point out that your method of > evaluation and scorekeeping is unfair. You asked why you would want > to have multiple partitions, and that is the question that people are > answering, but your 'multiple partitions vs. multiple disks' > scorekeeping is really 'multiple partitions (on a single disk) vs. > (multiple partitions on) multiple disks'. > > Multiple partitions are multiple partitions, regardless of whether > they're on the same physical device or not. > Then there's the third possibility: single partitions on multiple disks, via LVM or RAID. (My / directory, for example, is a RAID-5 partition that is, physically, four 20-gig physical partitions on four separate HDs, adding up to a sixty-gig partition.) -- ------------------------------------- There's a widow in sleepy Chester Who weeps for her only son; There's a grave on the Pabeng River, A grave that the Burmans shun, And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri Who tells how the work was done. -------------------------------------