2014-01-22, 15:42
(2014-01-22, 15:36)MilhouseVH Wrote:(2014-01-22, 15:18)jacintech.fire Wrote: ...and enlighten me, how EXACTLY is this crazy? Please list a couple of nightmare scenarios that await me in some distant future...Take your time, I will wait...
You're not managing your resources effectively, and you're adding masses of overhead for no benefit. You're in denial that disks fail, as you are about database corruption. As you've come to realise, a bit late I might add, accessing your media scattered across 1024 independent partitions is a major headache. Your lack of redundancy (and your attitude towards it) is frankly breathtaking (no doubt born out of naivety).
There are a multitude of volume management options available to you that would have meant you didn't need to create this monumental embarrassment, and could have avoided all the problems you have created for yourself. Nobody in their right mind, with any technical competency or common sense, would have created such a system as you now have.
Many of us work in environments with more storage than yours, and with more files than yours, and so can probably speak with some authority when they say your setup is a complete joke (a bad one).
Ok. Give an example in which this setup (as it applies to XBMC) is a nightmare...
(2014-01-22, 15:41)MilhouseVH Wrote:(2014-01-22, 15:27)jacintech.fire Wrote: Con you please describe with examples as it relates to XBMC, the "hell" or "nightmare" you believe I am experiencing...
It seems that you've created your setup just so you don't have to search for a file. I mean, really? Or is that some sort of backward justification for creating such a horror show?
It's difficult for us to describe what you might consider to be "hell" when you seem to be appalled by the concept of searching for a file.
Again, give ONE example in which this setup, as it applies to XBMC is a nightmare...