I'm doing some shuffling of some systems, and I've got a question. I know *HOW* to partition drives, but frankly I'm finding partitions to be more of an asset than a liability. The reasons I have so far that justify creating a partition are: 1 Boot partitions (multiple OSs, or in the case of Alpha, some need to see a FAT partition with certain BIOS/bootloader combinations. 2 Need for multiple fs. If you *need* a disk of fs <x>, sure. 3 Simple "hardware quotas". I see no reason to divide the drive otherwise. If you want to have multiple disks, you can hang them from any mountpoint in that file system. If one of multiple disks goes down, you can remount/restore to the same point, whether the drive in question has been partitioned or not. But if a partitioned drive fails totally, all the partitions fail. It has *not* been my experience that drives fail in such a way as to render some of them useful, but not others. (Not that it can't happen, but bad bearings affect all partitions equally.) Not from *nix, but I know VMS has had logical volume capability since forever, and RMS filesystems are *not* partitioned. Does the LVM use partitioned drives (I'm reading web stuff as I ask...) or do they spend a lot of energy trying to integrate partitions back into raw drive space so that they can control the fs structure? I just wanted to hear a little discussion on this, 'cause I think I'm close to developing an opinion that partitioning is silly. Thx, Phil -- "Trying to do something with your life is like sitting down to eat a moose." --Douglas Wood