Restating the case for keeping "User Data" on a physically separate drive or drives

[Oren Beck]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20090131/62995049/attachment.htm>