Talk:Volume (computing)

Volume label
Volume label directs here, but there's no discussion of it in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Volume label is what, IBM at least, called the part where the name is stored on the volume itself. In the case of magnetic tapes, the name might be on a sticker on the reel, but IBM SL (standard label) tapes also have it written onto the beginning of the tape. That allows the OS to veriry that the correct one was mounted. Disks also have such, at least from the days of mountable disks. Gah4 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Volume label is what, IBM at least, called the part where the name is stored on the volume itself. In the case of magnetic tapes, the name might be on a sticker on the reel, but IBM SL (standard label) tapes also have it written onto the beginning of the tape. That allows the OS to veriry that the correct one was mounted. Disks also have such, at least from the days of mountable disks. Gah4 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete description
The main page of this article lacks a description of volumes used in non-FAT file systems.

The article could be improved if there were a few paragraphs on the usage of volumes in non-FAT file systems. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ECMA 167's defintion of a logical volume
According to sections 5.6, 5.7 of part 3 of ECMA-167 (which is the framework for the UDF standard used in removable media such as DVDs,Blue-ray discs, etc.)

A Logical Volume is defined as: A logical volume is a non-empty set of partitions.

A Partition is : An extent of logical sectors within a volume. (An extent means a set of contiguous sectors)

The above definition for logical volume seems quite different from the one mentioned in this article.Of course, the definition might be only within the scope of the ECMA-167 and UDF documents, but these are major standards, and may still be a cause for confusion. (It certainly caused me confusion,because my idea of what a Volume is, was based on this Wikipedia article)

Any expert on the subject can clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.101.245 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On an IBM Series/1, under the EDX operating system, the name "volume" referred to a concept which was quite similar to a partition in that it was of fixed size and could not have any sub-volumes (except on floppy disks), and was used as a directory with a fixed number of entries. A "partition", however, was the name given to a segment of the main storage (RAM). --Jost Riedel (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

what is a boot volume
what exactly is a "boot volume"? the term "boot volume" is used in the article, but it is not defined. -- 15:19, 12 November 2011‎ 78.180.70.199


 * One which contains bootstrapping code to start a computer. AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Volume (compression)
Volume (compression) is an unreferenced stub with content similar to Volume (computing). It could be added in a separate section, or perhaps simply just redirect. &#8239;Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”&#8239; 22:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please merge it, tbh this article isn't great. It has no citations and its a stub. It would be better to merge with Volume (computing) and create a redirect. Thanks, George (My Talk Page) 17:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not merge this article, I don't know why this was even suggested the two do not have anything to with each other. I think you need to re-read the articles Senator2029 aside from the names they don't have any relevance to each other. their not the same thing and DO NOT belong together--Nerdbits (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In it's current state Volume (compression) could very well be integrated. The problem is, that the Volume (compression) article is not very detailed, to use an understatement. I believe there is more to say about oompressed volumes, across the different OSes and Filesystems (ZFS to name one). To state that they have don't have any relevance to each other is quit bold. Of course when reading about volumes one wants to read about compressed volumes as well. 178.199.234.192 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we're at the #4 "contradiction" level of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (part of the WP:AADD essay), with one saying it is relevant and the other saying it is not relevant. Honestly, that's much better than what passes for "discussion" at many other places on the internet, so bravo all around.
 * Nevertheless, I think we can kick it up a notch to #3, #2, or #1 sections of the hierarchy.
 * I'll begin: I hear that so-called "whole-disk compression" and Category:Compression file systems never actually applies to an entire hard disk -- when a hard disk has several partitions, the whole-disk compression utility handles the data in each volume independently -- sometimes each volume is managed by a different and completely incompatible "whole-disk compression utility". So perhaps it might be more accurate to call it "whole-volume compression". I agree with Georgeh109, Senator2029, etc. that such whole-volume compression is closely related to the kind of thing discussed in this volume (computing) article.
 * Often people want to back up a large set of data that is too big to fit on a single disk of storage media (floppy disks or compact disks or DVDs or emails with limited-size attachments or etc.). So they create a so-called "split Zip file", which is technically not a single file, but a series of files, each file (just barely) small enough to fit on a single disk. Typically the split Zip file for one set of data is a series of numbered files (volumes) that all have the same names, but unique extensions ".z01", ".z02", ".z03", ... ".zip". Confusingly, each of those files is called a "volume", and apparently the volume (compression) article discusses this kind of volume, which I agree with Nerdbits is very different from the kind of thing discussed in this volume (computing) article.
 * --DavidCary (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Mount Points
"Mount points have been left at defaults." What does that mean in regard to the following table ? There´s no column header, that says "mount point."

The origin of volumes
Volumes go back at least to OS/360 in the early 1960's, if not earlier. The article makes it seem that they started with MS-DOS, or some similar system. For OS/360, volumes can be either tape or disk. Even more interesting, OS/360 allows for multi-volume data sets, especially on tape, though also removable disks. This feature, and tape volumes, do not seem to have survived into MS-DOS or Windows. Note that OS/360 volumes continue through MVS and z/OS. Gah4 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

definition
Why is the term volume defined as it is and where does this definition come from?

Later in the article it is stated, that Windows Server 2008 and later (in #Differences between volume and partition) volume is used as a superset that includes partition as well, while the definition that a volume is a single accessible storage area with a single file system is not referenced anywhere.

The reason I ask is that I cannot find such a definition anywhere. What I can find, is, that partitions and volumes are used everywhere in articles and books about storage techniques, but not defined. An example is Mac OS X Disk Utility, where creating partitions will actually call them volumes, so they are the same (in this context at least).

Also, this statement is false:
 * A volume is not the same thing as a partition. For example, a floppy disk might be accessible as a volume, even though it does not contain a partition, as floppy disks cannot be partitioned with most modern computer software.

While the first sentence might be true, the second is definitely false. A floppy disk can be partitioned, easily. Just use Linux or another operating system that lets an expert user decide what he or she wants to do, manually. The reason that floppy disks are not partitioned is that it is just not viable given the storage capacity. (Likewise it was possible to use 100MB ZIP-Disks with or without a partition table.) On the other hand, higher capacity storage devices, e.g. HDDs or SSDs, can easily as well be used without a partitioning scheme at all, again easily when using Linux. (Microsoft called this superdisk, and like it is not supported to use partitioned floppies in Windows, it is not supported to use unpartitioned USB pen drives, even though it would work easily...) So why is this not the common practice and why is it not recommended? Because, if such a storage device would be accessed from, say, Windows or another operating system than the original, it would be seens as "empty" because it lacks a partition table. In that sense a parition table is just a precaution for multi-boot-systems, telling another operating system that the disk (or a part of the disk, i.e. ore or more partitions) is actually in use by another system (hence the partition type - Windows will ignore unknown types, yet honor the fact that they're there and that they might be in use).

Another reason is, of course, "magic". Modern operating systems want to see "headers" to make automatic configuration and use possible. As such, if Linux finds a partition table, it will look for suitabel partition types. It will then search the headers of those "volumes" (actually, partitions) for further information, like LUKS headers, LVM structures or file systems. All this would be a bit harder without the partitioning struction, but it would be possible.

Windows (like macOS) also uses such "magic", thus requireing certain structures such as partition tables in the first place.

Thanks, > Andreas o ^T^ 11:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC) (Update: > Andreas o ^T^ 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC))


 * The passage you quoted speaks of "most modern software", not theoretical possibilities. If floppies are almost never found partitioned (insofar as anyone even still uses them) and higher-capacity media are rarely found unpartitioned, then the passage isn't false. AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

merge
There is a link here about a merge with volume serial number, but there is no discussion here. I think merge is fine, but with one complication. OS/360 and successors use the volume serial number to keep track of disks and tapes, even NL (unlabeled)tapes. In that case, the volume serial number is only written on a sticker attached to the reel. I suspect that this defintion doesn't apply to other systems. OS/360 will request that a tape be mounted, if specified as NL will verify that the tape actually does not have a label, and then allow it to be used. One thing to know, if the tape is blank (not previously used) it will run off the reel searching for a label. In any case, NL tapes should be included in the discussion. Gah4 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅; no objections to the addition of new material in situ. Klbrain (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsuitable Example
In the choosen Example partition=volume (each partition exactlty equals one volume :( The readers would like to see examples where a partition holds more volumes - or even the opposite ... 85.216.197.77 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some systems now have the idea of a logical volume which might be more than one physical disk, or one partition of a physical disk. More than one is normally done with RAID. Gah4 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some systems now have the idea of a logical volume which might be more than one physical disk, or one partition of a physical disk. More than one is normally done with RAID. Gah4 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Example: "Any of these can be called a "drive"." Really?
AFAICT (disk) drives should be the physical storage hardware, and thus only "Hard Disk 1" and "Hard Disk 2" are drives. -- 林博仁 (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since about the beginning of USB flash sticks they have been called drives. I suppose it makes some sense, especially in the days of removable disks, for the hardware to be a drive (with or without a disk pack mounted) and volume to be the logical descriptor. The idea of logical volume distinguishes it from a physical volume. Gah4 (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since about the beginning of USB flash sticks they have been called drives. I suppose it makes some sense, especially in the days of removable disks, for the hardware to be a drive (with or without a disk pack mounted) and volume to be the logical descriptor. The idea of logical volume distinguishes it from a physical volume. Gah4 (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)