[Madrag]

hello all,

I've been reading the threads, and I've seen most of the users storing the documents in the home folder...

I think that's only usefull if you share your computer with someone else, and also because of the permissions.

Now, I prefer to store my documents in a dedicated partition, as I've partitioned my HD into several partitions. I left the system in a dedicated partition, and the same for the programs (with the exception of some utilities, which I store in the system disc)

It's easier to manage; the system disc is easier to manage; the backups are easier, the programs disc is easier to manage as well, etc.

Why would you store it in the home folder?

BTW, don't tell me that it's because you just have one partition, because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access (maybe not only these two, but you get the picture).

[Randman]

Originally posted by Madrag:
because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access

Not with OSX. Maybe on a peecee or pre X days.

[Millennium]

About the only real reason anymore to partition your HD is to put OS9 on the partition, and that's only useful if your machine can boot OS9 in the first place. Otherwise, your assertion that "you should partition your hd for easier management and disk access" is simply false.

Why should you keep your documents in your Home folder? Because it's your Home folder. It really is that simple.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Madrag:
It's easier to manage; the system disc is easier to manage; the backups are easier, the programs disc is easier to manage as well, etc.

Why would you store it in the home folder?

BTW, don't tell me that it's because you just have one partition, because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access (maybe not only these two, but you get the picture).

I store all my data in the home folder because it is easier to manage and backups are easier.

You do not need to partition your HD to reduce disk access times because for disc access, there is absolutely no difference, since you're still accessing the same physical disk. There is no speed gain.

But there is a huge increase in maintenence and daily annoyance - the system assumes that stuff is in certain fixed locations, and if it fails to find them there, you have to show it manually every time. Ex: all applications tend to default to locations within the home folder when you get the Save or Open dialogs. It is YOUR annoyance when you constantly have to redirect this. I also find backups far more annoying when data is spread over several disks/partitions (since your preferences and Mail, etc., are all stored in the Library folder of your user directory), as opposed to simply backing up the Home folder and being done with it.

If you keep all your data in your home folder, and all your applications in your Applications folder, then managing stuff on a single partition is MUCH less work than using separate partitions.

And that's not even taking into account permissions-mangling.

Edit: I actually used to use partitions a lot up until a few years ago. All things told, I lost an *awful* lot of time from having to shuffle around data or applications, not to mention back up and re-partition every once in a while, simply because my needs changed over time or my applications folder grew when I installed another audio program, or my audio data grew when I added a sample library or whatever.

-s*

[solbo]

Originally posted by Madrag:
BTW, don't tell me that it's because you just have one partition, because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access (maybe not only these two, but you get the picture).

That is pretty hilarious, and completely false.

Although if you feel it is to your benefit to have a documents partition, then go for it. Nothing about OS X is stopping you.

[fisherKing]

the whole idea of the User folder is to keep all work, music, preferences unique to that user in one place.

most apps look to save to "documents" by default.

if the os crashes, or u need to do an archive&install, the user folder is untouched.

why partition? maybe in the classic days (thru os9), but it's not necessary in X.

still...it's your mac, use it anyway u want!

[Madrag]

I find it easier to manage different partitions than managing the *big* single HD.

I may be wrong when stating that it has a faster access, I stand corrected.

My point was about maintaining/backing up the system, as I think that having the system isolated is more benefitial when you do several system backups (and don't have to wait for all the Gigs stored (the documents) to go to that specific backup... (if I want to backup my documents, I'll select the dedicated docs partition).

As for the save dialogs, let me tell you that I don't need to change anytrhing appart from the first time I've installed the OS, because it gets my last folder and not the home/documents.

as for the partitions, I have eight, each for a specific objective/type.
You may think that it's too much, but I follow the "divide to conquer" moto...

Understand that this thread is for expressing your opinion about the subject, I'm not obliging anyone to store the docs alsewhere , so please don't get me wrong and start firing, I'm trying to understand other point of view.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Madrag:
hello all,

I've been reading the threads, and I've seen most of the users storing the documents in the home folder...

I think that's only usefull if you share your computer with someone else, and also because of the permissions.

Now, I prefer to store my documents in a dedicated partition, as I've partitioned my HD into several partitions. I left the system in a dedicated partition, and the same for the programs (with the exception of some utilities, which I store in the system disc)

It's easier to manage; the system disc is easier to manage; the backups are easier, the programs disc is easier to manage as well, etc.

Why would you store it in the home folder?

BTW, don't tell me that it's because you just have one partition, because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access (maybe not only these two, but you get the picture).

You can do that easily without touching the directory structure. Mount your partition as /Users/ or /Users/[your login name]/, it's the power of Unix In my experience departing from the unix directory structure makes things harder, not easier.

E. g. you can still easily share your documents and you still have the benefits of a separate partition, if you wish.

[chabig]

Do you partition your house too? Let's see, one building for beds, one for sofas, one for dining, and other for bathing... Of course not, you keep your stuff in your home. It's the same with data.

If you like partitions, then fine. But it doesn't simplify anything or provide any benefit unless you're booting multiple operating systems. Is it any harder to backup the Documents folder than it is to backup your Documents partition?

Chris

[Devin Lane]

I use partitioning just for organization, and to install other OSs on (Yellow Dog).

[Madrag]

that comparison is not very good... I could transform your example into something that explains why partitioning is good:
do you have the bed, sofas, kitchen table, bath in the same room... Of course not, you keep your stuff in separate places. It's the same with data.

As for the backup, backing up the documents folder is the same as backing up the documents partition, but I was refering to backing up (and most importantly, restoring it if needed) the system partition. If you have the documents inside the home, backing up the system will take longer, and if you only wanted to backup the system without the documents, that's a waste of time...

Because I have the documents outside the home, I can restore the system on my backup without even worying with the documents...

I see the point of keeping things together in the system disc, but I am used to organise my files into different partitions and can see that I might belong to a minory

[cpac]

partitioning is for people with a lot more time on their hands than me.

[hadocon]

Originally posted by Randman:
Not with OSX. Maybe on a peecee or pre X days.

I agree. Partitioning is dumb. The returns you get on the time invested in partitioning drives is negligible. I find that most of the people that talk about thei rpartitioned HD's on this forum are either recent switchers, or uninformed... Which are now that I think of it, almost the same thing.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Madrag:
that comparison is not very good... I could transform your example into something that explains why partitioning is good:
do you have the bed, sofas, kitchen table, bath in the same room... Of course not, you keep your stuff in separate places. It's the same with data.

As for the backup, backing up the documents folder is the same as backing up the documents partition, but I was refering to backing up (and most importantly, restoring it if needed) the system partition. If you have the documents inside the home, backing up the system will take longer, and if you only wanted to backup the system without the documents, that's a waste of time...

Because I have the documents outside the home, I can restore the system on my backup without even worying with the documents...

I see the point of keeping things together in the system disc, but I am used to organise my files into different partitions and can see that I might belong to a minory

Not sure what back up software you're using, but I can back up the system by itself pretty easily. I simply choose which folders to include/exclude.

I used to use partitions too. At one point I had my Home folder on a separate drive, but with the development of archive and install, I see no benefits of keeping the system separate from your data.

[leperkuhn]

silverkeeper is free and backs up everything to a different drive.

Partitions don't really help in the instance of disk failure. I've used them with OS9 and OSX. Looking back, I know I used them just for the sake of using them, and they offered no benefit to me whatsoever. It was really a "look what I can do" thing.

I back up different areas of my home folder on a regular basis onto a separate drive. No problems.

[Madrag]

Originally posted by hadocon:
I agree. Partitioning is dumb. The returns you get on the time invested in partitioning drives is negligible. I find that most of the people that talk about thei rpartitioned HD's on this forum are either recent switchers, or uninformed... Which are now that I think of it, almost the same thing.

ok, if I'm uninformed (as I've been a mac user for the last 12 years, I suppose I'm not a switcher), then here goes some information for you that are already informed:

first, I don't see how much time you invest in partitioning, it takes one minute, and the system install took less than four minutes, so.

now some reasons to partition:

1. if you need a second boot drive and only have the internal HD

2. I don't like the archive and install, I prefer to control it manually (mostly because I format the system partition each time I install the system from scratch), so I prefer to store the documents into the other partitions

3. if you work with video/audio, you might want to have a separate partition formatted as UFS, which doesn't get fragmented, to store your files.


this is another topic, the funny thing is that the original topic was about the documents location and not if you should or shouldn't partition and why.

[legacyb4]

I only partition to keep my iTunes collection to a manageable level; consider it a "hard" limit for the maximum amount of disk space I'm willing to allow my music to occupy. Otherwise, I've stopped using partitions like the OS9 days...

[Madrag]

yep, I forgot that one!
I also like keeping the documents in a partition because of the HD size overview.

[Calli46]

Nowadays with OS X, there might not be many reasons to still use partitions. As some have said, it is yet the way to go if you want more than one OS on the same disk (OS X and Linux, for example). Another reason, contrary to misinformation read in this thread, is speed!

Analogika wrote :

You do not need to partition your HD to reduce disk access times because for disc access, there is absolutely no difference, since you're still accessing the same physical disk. There is no speed gain.

There is a speed gain, and a substantial one at that! Accessing the last third of a disk is about 50% slower than the first third. To test this, just divide a firewire disk in 3 equal partitions. Then measure the time it takes to fill each of them. Don't trust me : try it!

For me it doesn't matter because I don't need that much speed from my disks. But for some people, mostly those using RAID 0, this is an important issue.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Madrag:
ok, if I'm uninformed (as I've been a mac user for the last 12 years, I suppose I'm not a switcher), then here goes some information for you that are already informed:

first, I don't see how much time you invest in partitioning, it takes one minute, and the system install took less than four minutes, so.

now some reasons to partition:

1. if you need a second boot drive and only have the internal HD

2. I don't like the archive and install, I prefer to control it manually (mostly because I format the system partition each time I install the system from scratch), so I prefer to store the documents into the other partitions

3. if you work with video/audio, you might want to have a separate partition formatted as UFS, which doesn't get fragmented, to store your files.


this is another topic, the funny thing is that the original topic was about the documents location and not if you should or shouldn't partition and why.

1. Only necessary if you're booting into another OS like Linux. OS9 and OSX boot fine on the same partition
2. Reformatting a partition doesn't give you a tabu-la rosa. You need to zero the drive and that requires wiping all the partitions.
3. I'm not sure about this one, but I've read that you get a speed hit in OSX using UFS

The time wasted with partition is in re-partitioning when you realize that you've run out of space. So the one minute used to partition, could lead to hours of backing up, re-partitioning, and re-installing your system.

Do what you like with partitioning, it's just not worth the hassle for me.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Madrag:
BTW, don't tell me that it's because you just have one partition, because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access (maybe not only these two, but you get the picture).

I don't know about you, but I use these things called "folders." They allow me to organize my files just like partitions, but even more flexibly!

And as for backing up: If you back up a disk onto itself, you're asking for it. That almost completely defeats the point of a backup. I bought an el cheapo 80 GB external drive and just back up onto that.

[chabig]

Originally posted by Calli46:
There is a speed gain, and a substantial one at that! Accessing the last third of a disk is about 50% slower than the first third. To test this, just divide a firewire disk in 3 equal partitions. Then measure the time it takes to fill each of them. Don't trust me : try it!

With modern hard drives, the physical location of the data on the platter is completely invisible to the operating system. I don't believe there is any way to "place" data at particular position on the disk.

Chris

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by chabig:
With modern hard drives, the physical location of the data on the platter is completely invisible to the operating system. I don't believe there is any way to "place" data at particular position on the disk.

Chris

Parititions are not spread throughout the disk, but take up a single block of space.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Madrag:
I find it easier to manage different partitions than managing the *big* single HD.

Why? The size of the drive is meaningless; it is managed the same way whether it's 200 megs or 200 gigs.

My point was about maintaining/backing up the system, as I think that having the system isolated is more benefitial when you do several system backups (and don't have to wait for all the Gigs stored (the documents) to go to that specific backup... (if I want to backup my documents, I'll select the dedicated docs partition).

Partitions don't do this any better than folders do.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by hadocon:
I agree. Partitioning is dumb. The returns you get on the time invested in partitioning drives is negligible. I find that most of the people that talk about thei rpartitioned HD's on this forum are either recent switchers, or uninformed... Which are now that I think of it, almost the same thing.

Not at all .... I'm a long-time Mac User who has been using OS X since first public release and the Classic OSes for years before that. I partition my drive into 2 partitions for convenience.
160gb drive with about 149gb of usable space:
1st partition: ~49gb, stores all my normal stuff for 2 users and a slew of documents in my User folders (documents, movies, pictures, etc)
2nd partition: ~100gb, stores my iTunes Music library so all users on my machine can put and get all music from the same spot without redundancy (so, it acts like a 'Shared' folder in that regard). It also holds some enormous video files from DVD rips, etc (that I like to play with .. chop out/edit scenes, etc). Point is, the 2nd partition is stuff that I physically have back ups for (either the original CDs or DVDs). Basically stuff that I don't want to waste the time and space backing up and that I want in a permissions neutral spot. Right now, I have about 45gb on that partition that I quite simply don't want to bother trying to make backup space for.

With this scheme I can use Carbon Copy Cloner to back-up my "important" boot volume in a much smaller space (an identical 49gb partition on another drive) without backing up all the "chaff" that is on my 2nd partition. I don't want to go out and buy another 160gb drive just to do backups when I already have a 49gb partition on another (80gb) drive that works just fine for that.

Point being: Some of us do partition our drives because it works better for us ... not because we are uniformed or think that its somehow "better" than a single partition.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Speaking of "chaff," perhaps I could summarize the pro-partition arguments and see if I understand you:

1. Shared folder; OS X has some way of ignoring permissions on non-boot volumes that /Users/Shared in some way does not fullfill.

2. Backups; some of us are uninformed as to how to make backups of the system without leaving certain folders out.

3. Multi Boot; you want to install linux or something else side by side with OS X

4. Multi Formatting; you want something with HFS+ and something with UFS (or FAT32).

Is that about the state of it? If so, I'd like someone who's ever tried these things to explain 1 and 2. Because I don't share with other users, and I only back up data, not the system, but I'm still interested to know what the problems are with using the Shared folder and the backup software.

[tooki]

Originally posted by Madrag:
3. if you work with video/audio, you might want to have a separate partition formatted as UFS, which doesn't get fragmented, to store your files.

For starters, UFS disk performance on Mac OS X is substantially below that of HFS+. Apple clearly has optimized Mac OS X for HFS+, and vice-versa.

Second, NO filesystem can prevent all fragmentation. Not HFS, not HFS+, not FAT, not NTFS, and not UFS. In fact, HFS+ has substantial anti-fragmentation routines, and Panther adds more. But you can't prevent it altogether. It's impossible to do that in realtime.

Anyone using UFS for AV work is shooting himself in the foot.

tooki

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:

2. Backups; some of us are uninformed as to how to make backups of the system without leaving certain folders out.

I gotta put my weight behind Silverkeeper - it is great for this. I have iTunes backing up once a week and a few other folders backing up nightly. I really like it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So what software are you using for backups that doesn't let you pick and choose what folders to include?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Not at all .... I'm a long-time Mac User who has been using OS X since first public release and the Classic OSes for years before that. I partition my drive into 2 partitions for convenience.
160gb drive with about 149gb of usable space:
1st partition: ~49gb, stores all my normal stuff for 2 users and a slew of documents in my User folders (documents, movies, pictures, etc)
2nd partition: ~100gb, stores my iTunes Music library so all users on my machine can put and get all music from the same spot without redundancy (so, it acts like a 'Shared' folder in that regard). It also holds some enormous video files from DVD rips, etc (that I like to play with .. chop out/edit scenes, etc). Point is, the 2nd partition is stuff that I physically have back ups for (either the original CDs or DVDs). Basically stuff that I don't want to waste the time and space backing up and that I want in a permissions neutral spot. Right now, I have about 45gb on that partition that I quite simply don't want to bother trying to make backup space for.

With this scheme I can use Carbon Copy Cloner to back-up my "important" boot volume in a much smaller space (an identical 49gb partition on another drive) without backing up all the "chaff" that is on my 2nd partition. I don't want to go out and buy another 160gb drive just to do backups when I already have a 49gb partition on another (80gb) drive that works just fine for that.

Point being: Some of us do partition our drives because it works better for us ... not because we are uniformed or think that its somehow "better" than a single partition.

You can do the same thing using the Shared folder in the Users directory.

[CaptainHaddock]

Using the Shared directory does require some attention to permissions. Files retain the permissions of their owners and can't, by default, be altered by other users.

[Randman]

If partitioning would be better, why doesn't Apple send out Macs with partitions?


Why? because the one partition method is easier and cleaner and makes more logical sense for most people.

You can partition if you wish, but it's not needed and takes up more time than it's worth.

As far as storing documents, it really doesn't matter where you store them, as long as they work for you and you have a viable backup solution.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
You can do the same thing using the Shared folder in the Users directory.

I know ... I mentioned that in my post. However, when you truly have multiple users (who don't understand what the Shared folder is or what it means) it makes it nearly impossible to enforce its role as such. My other user (and in the past, a couple of other users .. mostly with Windows background or very little computer background at all) did not seem to be able to "get it' -- they didn't understand the file structure, the concept of User's directories, or even remember where to find 'Shared'. A big fat drive icon on the desktop (and now in the side bar) was something tangible they could see all the time ... and they used it the way it was intended. When I first had OS X (on a small drive) I did keep a single partition and *tried* to explain Shared to my then 2 other User who *never* seemed to understand what it was. I would physically have to track them down and get them to log in and hold their hands while they cleaned up Shared and their home directories just so that I could make a backup on the smaller backup drive that I had.
Also:
You can't erase/format Shared separately from the volume its on.
You can't limit the size of Shared.
You can't mount and unmount Shared
You can't index your whole drive except Shared without manually indexing everything but Shared. This becomes important when shared holds a sh!tload of files that you don't want to waste time indexing.
You cannot install a concurrent version of OS X on Shared.
You have to explicitly manage the parts of Shared that will be backed up as opposed to the parts that won't be backed up.

My 2nd partition was not created solely to duplicate Shared. It was created to be a 2nd usable volume -- that just happens to work great as a Shared directory as well and helps logically separate shared items for backup vs. shared items to not be backed up. I wouldn't recommend creating a 2nd partition to anyone who has a small HD, who already has a backup volume as big as their internal, who only backs up files and not their system, or who really only uses it solely as a Shared folder. In my situation, with no external backup drive (other than the partition on my other machine's internal drive which I access via Target Disk Mode), it made lots of sense and complete system backup clones are a very simple, one-step-and-walk-away process. The time and hassle of setting it up last May was nominal (clone to backup, partition, clone back to my newly partitioned boot volume. Done -- exactly the same as before with not one stitch of tweaking required).

Multiple partitions are NOT "better" .. but they have advantages in certain situations, for certain users with certain hardware setups. In Randman's words, its the "viable" solution for me given what I have to work with here. My other option would be to buy an external + case and let about 50gb on my other machine go to waste ... OR I could waste my time customizing and specifying my backup process to pick out particular things to backup from a single volume in order to make it fit my backup volume. My process is simple, complete, and effortless to maintain .... *for me*-- though I certainly don't think it is a required (or even a "preferred") way of doing things. I helped a buddy buy an 80gb SD eMac last fall I didn't even mention partitioning to him .. just showed him the Shared folder and how to use it.

edit:thanks leperkuhn .... that SilverKeeper looks pretty nifty. I'm testing it out right now.

[Brass]

I may have missed it, but is there any reason why you can't do both?

Ie, store your documents in your home folder and store your home folder on another partitions (or to be a little useful, on another disk)? Why do you have to decide between one or the other?

If you really want your data on another partition or disk, then why not move your entire home directory onto that partition or disk? Mac OS X (and all unixy OSs) are specifically designed so that you can tell it where to find your home directory.

Admitedly, Mac OS X makes it painfully difficult to mount filesystems anywhere other than /Volumes, but that doesn't stop you from having a home directory somewhere there.

(BTW, you change the location of your home directory using NetInfo, if you want to. Search the forum for instructions).

[Madrag]

nice...
I started a thread about the location of the documents and it ended up with a discussion about partitioning

I see that many people are very angry about partitions, it's not even the I don't care atittude, it's more: do it and you're dumb...

About apple suppliying the single partition, I think that's just because in mass distribution that's easier to have it that way.

Man, if you don't like partitions, fine, but just don't say it's dumb.
For starters, I prefer to transform the default into something customized, and that includes the partitioning and most importantly, the documents location (the point of this thread), and with this topic I wanted to see how many of you like to customize the way your system is, and I can see that most are even *against* changing the documents location... Is that an eresy? does it alter in any way the speed? or your productivity? no it doesn't for sure! I've been doing it for the last 2,5 years and I'm fine.

My point: don't be so hard on other opinions/methods. Have you wondered how other people feel about yours?

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Madrag:
About apple suppliying the single partition, I think that's just because in mass distribution that's easier to have it that way.

It's because there's no reason for them to supply more than one. You may like customizing your computer for no reason at all, but I don't see why that means Apple ought to do it for you.

Originally posted by Madrag:
Man, if you don't like partitions, fine, but just don't say it's dumb.

Why not? If I think partitioning is a dumb practice, is that somehow...dangerous? Does saying so make people's heads explode?

Originally posted by Madrag:
For starters, I prefer to transform the default into something customized, and that includes the partitioning and most importantly, the documents location (the point of this thread), and with this topic I wanted to see how many of you like to customize the way your system is, and I can see that most are even *against* changing the documents location...

Partitioning is not part and parcel with customization. I do "like to customize the way my system is." I even store my documents in several different folders depending on what kind of document they are (I have about seven different categories). However, I don't keep these documents on another partition because partitions make your file system less flexible by essentially acting as fixed-size folders. I just use the normal kind of folder and it works out peachy keen.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Madrag:
Is that an eresy? does it alter in any way the speed? or your productivity? no it doesn't for sure! I've been doing it for the last 2,5 years and I'm fine.

it's like defragmenting. It doesn't harm anyone.

But before I waste 2 hours of my life on something that has no advantage...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by Madrag:
BTW, don't tell me that it's because you just have one partition, because you should partition your HD for easier management and disc access (maybe not only these two, but you get the picture).

...

nice...
I started a thread about the location of the documents and it ended up with a discussion about partitioning

You know darn well you started this thread to brag about your many partitions, and to try to get other people to imitate you.

Ask a question like "why would you ever store your documents in your Home folder," which has the obvious answer of "why not, they have to go somewhere, why not where they were intended to go." Then follow it with a blatant falsehood like "I have mine on another partition and don't tell me that's weird because you should too."

[Gavin]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
And as for backing up: If you back up a disk onto itself, you're asking for it. That almost completely defeats the point of a backup.

Well, you may not have an external or second drive.

I've had partitions save my bacon on a couple of occasions.

Sooner or later you will have a disk go bad on you. May times it will kill only one of the partitions. Data on the other partitions go untouched.

Most unix systems partition the drive up into several pieces. Usually you'll have something like 1 for the system, one for the user folders, one for the log files and temporary stuff that the system writes, and one for swap - virtual memory.

A set up like this can protect parts of the system from each other. It's especially important on a server which is historically what unix was for. Without the partitions the log files could get so big that they fill the disk and grind the computer to a halt. With the partition the log files fill up their own partition but the system keeps running. The partition enforces a quota. The same concept is useful for your video collection.

Also for most unixes, the virtual memory is written directly to the drive which has special formatting on a partition dedicated just to that, no file system. Oracle uses a similar idea to pull data directly from the drive more quickly. The fact that OS X uses a file on disk to write to is very weird for unix and slows OS X down a little because it has to go through some middle men in the form of HFS+ file system overhead.

The advantage in the way OS X does it is that the Vm file can be as big or small as it needs to be, files can grow and shrink, partitions can't. And that makes OS X a hell of a lot easier to install and especially to upgrade from say OS 9, which was a huge concern for apple.

So partitions are the norm. Apple has played some tricks to dumb it down for everyday users.

Anyway, I have to laugh at you guys saying "partitioning is dumb". You sound like a junior high kid saying "escrow is lame" or "life insurance is stupid" or "I hate girls". Just because YOU can't think of a good reason for it doesn't mean it has none.

[Devin Lane]

I'm surprised that people actually care this much. I use partitions, and hearing others on this form saying that using them is dumb really doesn't matter at all in my decision to use them. I cant' believe that some people are taking personal offense at this.

It's just an opinion! Use partitions all you want, I doubt anyone else will care. What I think those informed members of this board are trying to do is to dispel the rumors that partitioning somehow makes your system faster. In doing so, they are trying to warn others that taking a bunch of time to partition your hd is worthless if you are just going for speed.

If you want to use partitions, go right ahead. No one here is stopping you - but trying to convince everyone that they are either bad or good just isn't going to happen!

[Madrag]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
You know darn well you started this thread to brag about your many partitions, and to try to get other people to imitate you.
(...)

you're joking, obviously!

I never realised people didn't partition their drives and most of all, that they were so against it... that's why I wrote that the one partition wasn't the answer to keep the docs elsewhere. I mean, if you were to keep the docs elsewhere, would you store them in the same system partition? I realised that partitioning was the obvious solution (dumb as you say, but not dumb to me, in any way).

As for the backup in the same HD, Chuckit, I'm glad you knew that I have an external firewire drive that is in no way the same HD as the internal one...

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Gavin:
Anyway, I have to laugh at you guys saying "partitioning is dumb". You sound like a junior high kid saying "escrow is lame" or "life insurance is stupid" or "I hate girls". Just because YOU can't think of a good reason for it doesn't mean it has none.

And I think you need a good workout to get rid of this excess aggression. If you don't count Madrag and you, only one person in this thread has said "partitioning is dumb," so it looks like the sentiment is mostly coming from your side.

For the record, I never said partitions are universally useless (or "dumb"). I said they don't provide any functionality I or most other users need. There isn't anything about partitions that's any more "organized" than folders. Unless you need separate volumes, I don't see why you should create the complexity.

[Brass]

Originally posted by Gavin:
Well, you may not have an external or second drive.

I've had partitions save my bacon on a couple of occasions.

Sooner or later you will have a disk go bad on you. May times it will kill only one of the partitions. Data on the other partitions go untouched.

I think you're talking about a corrupt filesystem, or corrupt disk block. NOT a bad disk. If a disk goes bad in a crash sense, then the entire disk is completely useless. all partitions. gone. forever.

Backing up to a second partition may save you from human error (eg, accidentally deleting a file), and from some minor file system or file corruption problems. But for serious disk problems, such backups are of no use whatsoever. Beware of the false sense of security.

[Brass]

Originally posted by Gavin:
Most unix systems partition the drive up into several pieces. Usually you'll have something like 1 for the system, one for the user folders, one for the log files and temporary stuff that the system writes, and one for swap - virtual memory.

A set up like this can protect parts of the system from each other. It's especially important on a server which is historically what unix was for. Without the partitions the log files could get so big that they fill the disk and grind the computer to a halt. With the partition the log files fill up their own partition but the system keeps running. The partition enforces a quota. The same concept is useful for your video collection.

Also for most unixes, the virtual memory is written directly to the drive which has special formatting on a partition dedicated just to that, no file system. Oracle uses a similar idea to pull data directly from the drive more quickly. The fact that OS X uses a file on disk to write to is very weird for unix and slows OS X down a little because it has to go through some middle men in the form of HFS+ file system overhead.

Most unixes have the OPTION to use a swap partition AS WELL AS having the OPTION to use swap files. Where I work, with Solaris (probably the dominant Unix in many areas), we usually use swap files, NOT a partition. The reason being that you can easily change the amount of space used for swap, without having to repartition. Using a partition does not offer any real advantages for swap - keeping all the data contiguous on disk is all, and that's not really much help to anyone.

EDIT: BTW we do use separate partitions for other uses ( /, and /var are on separate partitions, as well as others). However, I don't see any good reason for doing so on my Mac desktop.

If I was to do any partitioning on the Mac, the only thing I would put on separate partitions, are the various log directories ( eg, /var/log and */Library/Logs ). But for a desktop, I wouldn't even bother with that.

[teszeract]

I would NEVER keep my documents in the home folder.

Simple answer: If I want to format my System partition for ANY reason, even if I lose all my setting, prefs etc... my documents are still safe.

For this reason I also don't use iPhoto. Better paranoid than trusting.

gratuitous car analogy: I'd rather keep my belongings in the boot or in the passenger compartment, than the engine compartment.

PS. I keep my docs on a separate disk not a separate partition, but lacking a second disk, I'd use a 2nd partition.

[chabig]

I think it's silly to follow Apple's arbitrary guideline. My system is set up like this...

1) I keep my system files in the Trash folder. That way, viruses and malware can't find the system files to screw with them. It's a security measure.

2) I store my documents in the Library folder. Because my library card expired a few years ago, I figured the Library folder was useless anyway. In my house I keep a lot of documents in a messy room I call the library. I don't scatter my documents around the home, so I follow the same organizational system on the computer.

3) In the Home folder, there are folder for music, movies, and pictures. But I don't want the RIAA to find my pirated songs, so I hide them in the movies folder. Who would think to look there? That means I have no place for my movies, so I hide them in the pictures folder. They're just like pictures, except there are a lot of them in each file and they flash by on the screen when I play them. Finally, my pictures go in the music folder.

Chris

[kcmac]

Originally posted by chabig:
I think it's silly to follow Apple's arbitrary guideline. My system is set up like this...

1) I keep my system files in the Trash folder. That way, viruses and malware can't find the system files to screw with them. It's a security measure.

2) I store my documents in the Library folder. Because my library card expired a few years ago, I figured the Library folder was useless anyway. In my house I keep a lot of documents in a messy room I call the library. I don't scatter my documents around the home, so I follow the same organizational system on the computer.

3) In the Home folder, there are folder for music, movies, and pictures. But I don't want the RIAA to find my pirated songs, so I hide them in the movies folder. Who would think to look there? That means I have no place for my movies, so I hide them in the pictures folder. They're just like pictures, except there are a lot of them in each file and they flash by on the screen when I play them. Finally, my pictures go in the music folder.

Chris

Yep. That's how I always do it as well. Works perfectly.

Worst thing is, that when Spotlight is here, it will be too easy to find everything. Wondering if I should update to Tiger after all.

[chabig]

Originally posted by kcmac:
Worst thing is, that when Spotlight is here, it will be too easy to find everything. Wondering if I should update to Tiger after all.

Good point! Spotlight is going to screw everything up! What a nightmare!

Chris

[kcmac]

Originally posted by chabig:
Good point! Spotlight is going to screw everything up! What a nightmare!

Chris

Yeah...tell me about it.

[Gavin]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
For the record, I never said partitions are universally useless (or "dumb"). I said they don't provide any functionality I or most other users need.

We'll my post wasn't aimed at you really. Just the part about backing up to a partition being a false sense of security. There are times when it can save you from data loss and I've experienced that first hand. Everything else was to the thread in general.

And I think you need a good workout to get rid of this excess aggression.

ha! no aggression here. I thought it sounded "irreverent and tongue in cheek". hard to tell tone from raw text I guess.

If you don't count Madrag and you, only one person in this thread has said "partitioning is dumb,"

yup, followed by lots of me too's. If you re-read the thread it has a distinct flavor of "it's a complete waste of time no matter what." My point is any position like that comes off as sophomoric. Sorry if that seemed to be aimed at you personally.