Certainly, I highly recommend keeping user data files separated from the "OS" files. However, it is not always reasonably possible to have the data on a separate drive. Such as laptops which have one internal drive. I always have a partition just for data. However separate drives, are better.
Brian J
--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Oren Beck orenbeck@gmail.com wrote:
From: Oren Beck orenbeck@gmail.com Subject: Restating the case for keeping "User Data" on a physically separate drive or drives To: "KCLUG" kclug@kclug.org Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 11:45 AM I have been gently suggesting a new practice. Making it routine to keep the Non-OS data on a separate drive from the OS. Bluntly stating the two bedrock facts seems belaboring the obvious. But the percent of such default installs is trivial at best. So? I invite constructive comment on why or why NOT using a separate device for OS and user data makes any sense.
The two bedrock facts being? 1: that any disaster befalling the OS device's file system has "less chance" of damaging user data. 2: Establishing that user data as detached from the OS assists many things. The list of those "many things" is non-trivial and more. Let me give the short closers
*IF* we establish it as default practice that future Linux installs use a two device minimal mode we banish whole categories of data disasters. That alone is good enough for me. The icing on that being swapping an OS becomes closer to a trivial "no user data risked" operation.
Addendum forced by premeditated desire to stifle the YahBut gallery is the cherry on top.
In a long past time a "drive" was a truly major expense. Even removable media such as floppy etc were cost issues. Today ? I humbly offer the KCLUG thread on Craig's issues RE: Rolling back updates. as "Exhibit A"
-- Oren Beck
816.729.3645 _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug