I recently had to return a couple of external FireWire/USB hard drives (Iomega and Micronet) because I discovered in the manual that partitioning was not recommended, and my application requires partitioning the HD. I emailed the makers and asked why they didn't recommend it, but have received no response. Does anyone know why a hard drive might not respond well to partitioning? Or is it just some kind of "protect their posterior" thing? I've since gotten an OWC Neptune FW HD, it has no problems with partitioning according to OWC. Dale Meyn.
Partitioning HD no recommended?
- Thread starter dalemeyn
- Start date
DeltaMac
Tech
Just curious - what application 'requires' partitioning?
I assume that you mean more than one partition, which should be easy to do, simply by changing the partition setting in your Disk Utility (and not brand specific, which makes no sense at all)
I would 'always' partition a new external HD, as it would normally come formatted as a Fat (Win) volume, which will certainly work fine on the Mac. Erasing as an HFS Extended format will usually result in a more responsive drive on the Mac, with somewhat faster reads and writes. Of course, the drive would not be usable then on any PC.
I assume that you mean more than one partition, which should be easy to do, simply by changing the partition setting in your Disk Utility (and not brand specific, which makes no sense at all)
I would 'always' partition a new external HD, as it would normally come formatted as a Fat (Win) volume, which will certainly work fine on the Mac. Erasing as an HFS Extended format will usually result in a more responsive drive on the Mac, with somewhat faster reads and writes. Of course, the drive would not be usable then on any PC.
sinclair_tm
wow, 1.4g is way faster!
i have never heard of reccomending no partitions. seems silly if you ask me. the only reason i can think of is because it would slow transfer rates down between the drive and computer. it would effectivly be putting 2 drives on a channel made to handle one. which could lead to data corruption, so they may say that to cover themselfs from lawsuits.
what app you using that has to have a partitioned drive and not work with 2 drives?
what app you using that has to have a partitioned drive and not work with 2 drives?
DeltaMac
Tech
The poster did not say 'no partitions' just that partitioning is not recommended.
(I agree, seems a little silly!)
Of course, you always will have one partition, or volume, as a minimum. Perhaps the drive manufacturer is just offering the suggestion that more than one partition is not usually needed for any purpose.
Most users do not need to use partitions, except for personal preference.
Multiple partitions do not, in themselves, affect the performance of the drive bus. The drive, even with multiple partitions, is still just one device on the bus.
(I agree, seems a little silly!)
Of course, you always will have one partition, or volume, as a minimum. Perhaps the drive manufacturer is just offering the suggestion that more than one partition is not usually needed for any purpose.
Most users do not need to use partitions, except for personal preference.
Multiple partitions do not, in themselves, affect the performance of the drive bus. The drive, even with multiple partitions, is still just one device on the bus.
Damrod
Registered
Like it was said, should be no problem at all to partition the drive and keep the response high. And partitioning is the thing to do IMO:
Multiple partitions dividing Data, System and Software can save data when a serious crash or system problem occurs.
A HFS/Win formatted partitioned drive can keep the compatibility to Wondows PCs when hooking it up with one.
IMO, it'S a win/win situation
Multiple partitions dividing Data, System and Software can save data when a serious crash or system problem occurs.
A HFS/Win formatted partitioned drive can keep the compatibility to Wondows PCs when hooking it up with one.
IMO, it'S a win/win situation
DeltaMac said:
I'm creating a full clone of the internal HD on the larger partition, and a "safety clone" (the SuperDuper! Sandbox) on the smaller partition, from which I will run the computer. It is preferred that this be done on the external HD, not on the internal HD for various reasons. This can't be done without partitioning (which most users take to mean splitting into 2 or more partitions) unless I use 2 separate drives. For a rationale for this, read SD! user's manual.
I would still like to have an answer from anyone who has real knowledge of short or long term operational or mechanical problems which might arise from partitioning (splitting into 2 or more partitions) a HD. Bear in mind that the problem might not arise from the drive mechanism itself, but from some interaction between the driver in the computer and the bridge firmware and electronics in the enclosure. Only 2 makers have made the statement "partitioning not recommended/supported". Others actually encourage it (OWC, LaCie, for example). It may indeed be only a legal avoidance of responsibility for consequential damage or loss as some have suggested. But I don't want a HD whose maker won't support reasonable use.
DeltaMac
Tech
dalemeyn said:
Reviewed about 6 different drive manuals from these 2 manufacturers, and they do not seem to mention any problems with partitioning, except with Win98. - no mention of questions about partitions with Mac OS X. Windows 98 does not behave nicely with multiple partitions. That's where the support issue comes from. The Mac would be fine with partitioning any of the drives you have mentioned so far.
OS X will support any reasonable number of partitions you want to make on one device. Keep in mind that you will still have only one device, with one platter motor, and the driver circuitry for read/write to that device. If you have a mechanical failure (or electronic, for that matter), then you run the risk of losing everything, even if you have multiple partitions - they all share the same mechanicals/electronics on the same device.
There are some good reasons for using partitions, some have been posted here already. Using one partition to back up another partition on the same drive, is not a safe way to backup.
Quoting from p.17 of Fantom FW HD manual re Mac users: "Q. Can I partition the external Hard Drive? A. Not recommended." Also, in Iomega's online manual (only accessible from their installation CD, strangely) for the Black series FW/USB2.0 HD: nearly identical Q & A. I'm not using one partition to back up another partition on the same drive - the safety clone on the external HD is used as the boot volume protect the internal HD from corruption (from viruses, new apps, etc.); the full backup clone on the other partition of the external HD is to rebuild the internal HD if it bombs. The safety clone has no user files, these remain on the internal HD and are referenced via aliases from the safety clone, and the internal HD is used to update the full backup every night. It's complicated, but rational. Read SuperDuper!'s manual for full details and philosophy. Too much to explain in a brief posting.
DeltaMac
Tech
All you have to go on, is the information that is provided to you, and you have to decide for yourself. I see the info online about the Iomega drive, and that does state that partitioning is not recommended. Some of the other FAQs are no longer accurate, so the partitioning 'facts' may not be, either. For example, Iomega FAQ states that FAT-32 volumes larger than 128GB will not mount, which is true with 10.2.8 Jaguar, and older. No longer accurate since Panther, and with a larger drive, you would have to re-partition (supposedly) to get all of the space that you paid for - and partitioning is not supported, so?. Not so clear now, is it? (not clear to me!)
Anyhow - the (Iomega) information is woefully out-of-date if you have OS X newer than 10.2.8
As you said, would be nice to have some contact from Iomega, but I guess they lost you as a customer.
Anyhow - the (Iomega) information is woefully out-of-date if you have OS X newer than 10.2.8
As you said, would be nice to have some contact from Iomega, but I guess they lost you as a customer.
Besides the "no partitioning" rule, their Black series use the Prolific bridge chipset, which displays flaky behavior re mounting, being recognized by some apps, etc. I dodn't know what the Silver series uses. I strongly advise not buying any HD or enclosure which doesn't use one of the Oxford chipsets. If the catalog info doesn't mention it, ask them. If they don't respond, go somewhere else. OWC, for example, uses only Oxford.
I think we can definitely say that with any FireWire 400 or 800 drive, you're safe to partition it and use it in the way you described. Although _I'd_ advise using two physical disks for this. Because what are the reasons why the first clone would go bad? Most would also render the second one useless.
tumbleguts
Registered
I might be going a little off topic - but this thread got me thinking... There are many reasons for partitioning a hard disk. Most notably, because it can make organizing your files that much easier. That said, I personally am weary of partitioning having learnt the hard way that the virtue can become the vice. Please let me explain.
Partitioning is often seen as a good idea. By partitioning your hard drive into clearly defined sections, it makes it easier for you to logically organize your data. (For instance, one for system files, one for applications, one for music files, etc...) And having one's relevant data all neatly organized on a particular partition may make the task of being (and staying) organized much easier. Should the partition where an application is installed become corrupted or accidently deleted, the data in another partition won't be erased. You will only need to recover that one partition, which is certainly faster then recovering the entire hard disk. Partitioning can help to increase security without hampering performance. (For instance, you could choose to encrypt only those partitions that need protection, while other parts of your system run unencrypted and hence faster.) Hard drive partitioning can help your computer find data faster. (For the computer needs only to search one partition, and not the whole disk.) And should you wish to have another OS system installed (ie; Mac OS 9.2 or a previous version of Mac OS X), partitioning allows you to do so without having to physically install another hard drive...
However, there can be some drawbacks...
Mac OS X requires a certain amount of free/empty space available in order operate at maximum efficiency. This amount is generally much (much) more than you or I imagine. In fact, it isn't uncommon for "temporary files" to exceed 500Mb in size. Point being, that partitioning can decrease system performance if you haven't left it enough space to play with.
Applications often install program code into the OS system itself. If you have placed your applications on a separate partition, you may find your hard disk's heads are forever having to move back and forth between the two partitions. This, obviously decreases system performance, not to mention wear and tear on the hard drive itself. (And for this reason alone, I can understand why a hard drive manufacturer might be advising against partitioning.)
Should the disk fail... guess what? You don't just lose the affected partition, you lose them all! And from personal experience, I have found that it's much harder to restore and re-mount a damaged partitioned drive than one that isn't.
And lastly, with many partitions it is very easy to double up on data. Applications tend to automatically save to the last place a file was saved to. So extra care needs to be taken to specify the correct partition. And should you save to the "desktop" - it's not enough to just move the file to the relevant partition - oh no. You will also need to delete the original file. Because moving it, will only copy the file from the boot partition to the partition you move it to.
I mean, if you're really into organizing... How hard is it to keep them in relevant named folders? Or even better, (don't be cheap) buy another hard drive. At least you might also gain a performance increase...
Just things to consider...
Partitioning is often seen as a good idea. By partitioning your hard drive into clearly defined sections, it makes it easier for you to logically organize your data. (For instance, one for system files, one for applications, one for music files, etc...) And having one's relevant data all neatly organized on a particular partition may make the task of being (and staying) organized much easier. Should the partition where an application is installed become corrupted or accidently deleted, the data in another partition won't be erased. You will only need to recover that one partition, which is certainly faster then recovering the entire hard disk. Partitioning can help to increase security without hampering performance. (For instance, you could choose to encrypt only those partitions that need protection, while other parts of your system run unencrypted and hence faster.) Hard drive partitioning can help your computer find data faster. (For the computer needs only to search one partition, and not the whole disk.) And should you wish to have another OS system installed (ie; Mac OS 9.2 or a previous version of Mac OS X), partitioning allows you to do so without having to physically install another hard drive...
However, there can be some drawbacks...
Mac OS X requires a certain amount of free/empty space available in order operate at maximum efficiency. This amount is generally much (much) more than you or I imagine. In fact, it isn't uncommon for "temporary files" to exceed 500Mb in size. Point being, that partitioning can decrease system performance if you haven't left it enough space to play with.
Applications often install program code into the OS system itself. If you have placed your applications on a separate partition, you may find your hard disk's heads are forever having to move back and forth between the two partitions. This, obviously decreases system performance, not to mention wear and tear on the hard drive itself. (And for this reason alone, I can understand why a hard drive manufacturer might be advising against partitioning.)
Should the disk fail... guess what? You don't just lose the affected partition, you lose them all! And from personal experience, I have found that it's much harder to restore and re-mount a damaged partitioned drive than one that isn't.
And lastly, with many partitions it is very easy to double up on data. Applications tend to automatically save to the last place a file was saved to. So extra care needs to be taken to specify the correct partition. And should you save to the "desktop" - it's not enough to just move the file to the relevant partition - oh no. You will also need to delete the original file. Because moving it, will only copy the file from the boot partition to the partition you move it to.
I mean, if you're really into organizing... How hard is it to keep them in relevant named folders? Or even better, (don't be cheap) buy another hard drive. At least you might also gain a performance increase...
Just things to consider...
sinclair_tm
wow, 1.4g is way faster!
well, i don't partition my hard drives on my mac (i did long time ago for muti-os installs, like 7.1 and 7.6, or 8.1), but i do on my win box. i hav a 20-30gig os partition, and then the rest for my apps, games, photos, and music. this is due to the number of times i've had to reformat and install windows when it decieds to brake. now i just wipe the os partition, and all of my other files are safe from being lost. i recommend it to anyone that uses windows.