Comments on: Partitioning for 300GB http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/ making sense of mixed up software Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:48:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Partitioning for 300GB by: Linux with Doubts » Blog Archive » Moving a Fedora Installation http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-375 Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:24:18 +0000 http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-375 [...] Linux with Doubts making sense of mixed up software « Partitioning for 300GB [...] […] Linux with Doubts making sense of mixed up software « Partitioning for 300GB […]

]]> Comment on Partitioning for 300GB by: Mauriat http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-321 Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:41:38 +0000 http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-321 rjbond3rd: The typical scenario is this. I would be edditing a rather large file on disk (between 300MB to 2GB). If something happened (application crash, system reset, etc.) then I wouldn't just lose my changes, but I would lose the entire file. Later I found out this would be a problem in how FAT32 commits its changes to disk. NTFS doesn't have this problem, but at the same time, I can no longer write to it in Linux. Comparison, most all my problems with FAT32 were in Windows, however I have had on occasion problems in Linux, but VERY rarely. rjbond3rd: The typical scenario is this. I would be edditing a rather large file on disk (between 300MB to 2GB). If something happened (application crash, system reset, etc.) then I wouldn’t just lose my changes, but I would lose the entire file. Later I found out this would be a problem in how FAT32 commits its changes to disk. NTFS doesn’t have this problem, but at the same time, I can no longer write to it in Linux.

Comparison, most all my problems with FAT32 were in Windows, however I have had on occasion problems in Linux, but VERY rarely.

]]> Comment on Partitioning for 300GB by: rjbond3rd http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-319 Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:04:59 +0000 http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-319 ..."Using FAT32 in the past has caused data loss multiple times, hence I no longer use it..." I'm guessing this happens in either Windows or Linux, as a result of the non-robust FAT32 itself, rather than anything particular to Linux? …”Using FAT32 in the past has caused data loss multiple times, hence I no longer use it…”

I’m guessing this happens in either Windows or Linux, as a result of the non-robust FAT32 itself, rather than anything particular to Linux?

]]> Comment on Partitioning for 300GB by: Jeff Schiller http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-300 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:59:56 +0000 http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2006/04/11/partitioning-for-300gb/#comment-300 Seems well thought out. Even as late as ~2000, I was still under the naive assumption that having the entire ~18GB as a single NTFS partition was enough for my Windows 2000 install (i.e. including installing applications). Of course when I later added new hard drives I now use them exclusively for new applications and data/work. If I had the time and energy, I'd do a complete restructure (and install Windows XP) but the system is still quite snappy (I attribute this to using SCSI drives). Seems well thought out. Even as late as ~2000, I was still under the naive assumption that having the entire ~18GB as a single NTFS partition was enough for my Windows 2000 install (i.e. including installing applications). Of course when I later added new hard drives I now use them exclusively for new applications and data/work. If I had the time and energy, I’d do a complete restructure (and install Windows XP) but the system is still quite snappy (I attribute this to using SCSI drives).

]]>