This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Repository Partition - Drive letter or mount

I am setting up a new RR server. My current one is a DL4000 whcih came preconfigured from Dell. I noticed that the partition the repository is on has a mount location set vs a drive letter. Any reason to use one method (drive letter vs mount) or the other?

Parents
  • There is no real functional difference between a drive letter and a mount point. One of the reasons a mount point was chosen is that Windows won't show a warning about the drive being almost full when it is mounted as a mountpoint. If you use a drive letter Windows notifies that the drive is almost full when our repository is written to it. Another reason is that it allowed us to be able to code for situations like recovery from an OS or drive failure without having to worry about a drive letter being taken by a USB drive or something like that. In your situation, there is no reason to do one over the other. I'd probably default to using a drive letter since that is what Windows defaults to and it will be easier for someone else looking at the system to understand.

Reply
  • There is no real functional difference between a drive letter and a mount point. One of the reasons a mount point was chosen is that Windows won't show a warning about the drive being almost full when it is mounted as a mountpoint. If you use a drive letter Windows notifies that the drive is almost full when our repository is written to it. Another reason is that it allowed us to be able to code for situations like recovery from an OS or drive failure without having to worry about a drive letter being taken by a USB drive or something like that. In your situation, there is no reason to do one over the other. I'd probably default to using a drive letter since that is what Windows defaults to and it will be easier for someone else looking at the system to understand.

Children
No Data