Greg Earle said:

>http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi? 
>PAGE=PRODUCT&PROD_ID=1106306&cid=25608&fp=F

I prefer the $20 9 gig drives.

>In these days when you can get 73 GB SCSI disks for US $80, the old
>"But you might fill up the disk!" arguments don't hold much weight.

Assuming that the 73 GB drive has some life left in it.

>I separate my 9 GB boot disk.  But the point I was trying to make is
>that in this day and age of 73 GB SCSI drives and 400 GB EIDE drives,
>a lot of the old arguments for partitioning have gone out the window.

And I do the same. One partition per tape, one tape per dump. 4 gigs per
tape. Some of my systems have partitions greater than 4 gigs, that means
multiple tar backups on separate tapes.

>"Sick to your stomach"?  I suggest meditation if it stresses you that
>much  :-)  I've been running NetBSD/SPARC since 0.9 as well (early 1994,
>if I recall correctly; with one abortive foray into NetBSD/SPARC64).
>I don't see how it's cut-and-dried that it's "good engineering  
>practice".

I still have my NetBSD 0.9a machine down in the basement. It's ready to
boot. That's from April 1994, and I also have a 1.0a system from spring
of 1995 down there. I shut it down when I moved from Mass to Colorado in
late 1998.

>If I make "/var" a separate partition and *it* fills up, and brings the
>machine to a grinding halt, whereas if I hadn't it could've used up
>dozens of GB more (those 73 GB disks, again), is *that* "good  
>engineering
>practice"?  My point was that there is no cut-and-dried argument that
>proves one is better than the other, so why keep arguing about it?

Ijust add more disks and move the partition.

>I'm 46.  :-)

I'm 56. :-) :-)
-- 
Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.com
		<http://www.rmkhome.com/>
		<http://rkba.rmkhome.com/>