🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Lyons wrote:
> 
> I have just got a 2.1 GB disc to upgrade (replace) my 230 MB disc.
> 
> The question is: is partitioning it to decrease the allocation block size worth
> the hassle of not having a single resource into which to juggle my files?
> 
> What is your experience and advice.
> 
> I access news a lot, which uses a very variable amount of space, and I run
> stuff from covermount discs, which currently I can only do if its runable from
> the CD, but with more space I would be able to install and run stuff.  In other
> words, I think my usage of space is quite variable.

With a 2.1 I would certainly partition into three sections minimum.  Otherwise
you will waste space.  I have a 3.2 divided into four, and the only drawback
seems to be rebuilding the desktop, which you have to do four times!! not a problem!

Advantages are that you can dump infrequently used items onto a partition and
forget them.  Backing up is quicker as you only need to back up the drive(s)
you have altered, which is usually one in my case.

DriveSetup 3.1 from Apple is OK for partitioning, free from Apple sites.

There aren't really any downsides.

-- 
Lawrence Flowers                  |   Tel    +44 1444 811 966
LEAF TECHNICAL SERVICES LIMITED   |   Fax    +44 1444 811 000
                                  |   Mobile +44  973 600 111
                                  |   flowerpots@bigfoot.com

Tim Lyons <timl@kulath.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I have just got a 2.1 GB disc to upgrade (replace) my 230 MB disc.
> 
> The question is: is partitioning it to decrease the allocation block size
> worth the hassle of not having a single resource into which to juggle my
> files?
> 
> What is your experience and advice.
> 
> I access news a lot, which uses a very variable amount of space, and I run
> stuff from covermount discs, which currently I can only do if its runable
> from the CD, but with more space I would be able to install and run stuff.
> In other words, I think my usage of space is quite variable.
> 
I'd be tempted to partition it into 2 1gig partitions so that you get
some saving on allocation block size without the hassle of juggling
limited space between several partitions later. This also makes it easy
to keep a backup copy of you system folder which makes experimenting
with new stuff an awful lot safer.  The real concern as to if you want
to partition or not though is what size your files are. If you are in
the habit of saving a lot of small files then partittioning will give
you a great deal of space back. Finally to bear in mind, you may know
that OS8.1 will introduce HFS+ which will solve the allocation block
size for good (well for a few years) so you may want to wait for this to
be available.

-- 
'ric

In article <20@kulath.demon.co.uk>,
timl@kulath.demon.co.uk (Tim Lyons) wrote:

>
>I have just got a 2.1 GB disc to upgrade (replace) my 230 MB disc.
>
>The question is: is partitioning it to decrease the allocation block size worth
>the hassle of not having a single resource into which to juggle my files?
>
>What is your experience and advice.
>
>I access news a lot, which uses a very variable amount of space,

I see that you're using MacSlurp to post. When I used the troika, that
meant each post was a seperate file.  In *that* situation you tend to get
one file = 1 block, so the number of files is determined by the number of
blocks.  So really it makes sense to have a seperate partition for news.

And that's basically it.  If you want lots of small files then you need to
partition, otherwise you won't get much benefit from the extra space. 
You'll see some savings from larger files, too.

Personally I'd suggest about 100MB for news, a couple of 200MB partitions
for other relatively small files and at least one bigger partition in case
you want something really large.

--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")

Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply

Paul K.

In article <20@kulath.demon.co.uk>,
timl@kulath.demon.co.uk (Tim Lyons) wrote:

> I have just got a 2.1 GB disc to upgrade (replace) my 230 MB disc.
> 
> The question is: is partitioning it to
> decrease the allocation block size worth
> the hassle of not having a single resource
> into which to juggle my files?

Since you're used to a 230 Meg disk, it's gonna take you at least,
say, six months before you really need all that space.

I would strongly recommend you repartition it to include one
partition of around 600 to 650 Meg.  This should cover the last
part of your disk and include a (compressed ?) backup of the
important changable parts of your main disk and some rescue tools
such as a minimal system installation, Disk First Aid, and Norton.

Should your main disk ever get drastically corrupted you can boot
with no INITs (or from a floppy), use the 'Startup Disk' CP to
switch to this backup partition, and then reboot to an uncorrupted
partition with all the rescue tools you need.  It's far faster to
do this than to have to scratch everything off and start again.
I use this technique on my PowerBook while travelling around many
miles from my stack-of-disks and have always been able to rescue
my data without resorting to anything more than a System CD.

PS: Explaining about the spelling.  I use 'disk' and 'program' when
    I'm writing about the computing things, and the British English
    spellings for frisbees and TV schedules.

Simon.
-- 
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | Excessive quoting from Shakespeare:
   http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk    |                  gag me with a folio.
Check email address for spam-guard.  | -- sclerc@ernie.bgsu.edu (Susan Clerc)
Junk email not welcome at this site. | I receive about 2.5 junk emails a day.

Simon Slavin <slavins@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK> wrote:

[snip]
> PS: Explaining about the spelling.  I use 'disk' and 'program' when
>     I'm writing about the computing things, and the British English
>     spellings for frisbees and TV schedules.

According to the very British Eric Partridge's `Usage and abusage'
(Penguin, 1973):

Disc is a mere variant of disk, `the earlier and better spelling'
(according to the OED).  (Zoology and , in some sense, Botany employ the
spelling disc.)

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for my email address:   rebecca@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me.          
PGP pub key A680B89D; fingerprint: F5605EAE F56F2C0B 818F3319 5227767F
                                   What?  Don't ask me - I don't know.

Simon Slavin <slavins@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK> wrote:

[Snip good stuff about panic boot partitions]

> PS: Explaining about the spelling.  I use 'disk' and 'program' when
>     I'm writing about the computing things, and the British English
>     spellings for frisbees and TV schedules.

From the _Apple Style Guide 1991_ [1]

Disc: Use only when referring to a compact disc
Disk: Not diskette, floppy, etc. (If it's magnetic, it's "disk")

rgds, Alan
[1] Also the good definition of: "Hardware enables, software allows"

In article <1997120312273922991@newtechd.demon.co.uk>,
alan.frame@acm.org (Alan W. Frame) wrote:

> From the _Apple Style Guide 1991_ [1]
> 
> Disc: Use only when referring to a compact disc
> Disk: Not diskette, floppy, etc. (If it's magnetic, it's "disk")

They're reacting to the same situation: compact discs were invented
by a consortium composed of Philips and Sony.  The English spelling
was chosen by Philips which, not being American, chose the British
spelling of 'disc'.  Interesting.  Thanks.

Simon.
-- 
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | Excessive quoting from Shakespeare:
   http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk    |                  gag me with a folio.
Check email address for spam-guard.  | -- sclerc@ernie.bgsu.edu (Susan Clerc)
Junk email not welcome at this site. | I receive about 2.5 junk emails a day.