unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

Except for the fact that file structure is easily corruptible, and prone to user error, you are correct. The smarter and safer method especially for older users is to partition.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If the disk fails, all the partitions are gone.

The smarter solution for everyone is to buy two or more of the larger disks, use the file structure to separate the data from separate disks and have several duplicates of your backup. And use the cloud for backup backup.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm 69 and won't partition my backups, needless work, more to keep track.
Haven't had a "file structure" go bad in any system in 45 years.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

The original question was how to put all the data in one place (in this case a large drive) instead of multiple locations (numerous external drives). The old drives remain intact as part of a safety system. The use of partition on the large drive has several advantages over the use of a file system, speed and safety are the main ones. Absolutely a raid is a better way, but that was not the question. Leaving the original disks intact mitigates the risk of data loss some what, and the use of partition over file system enhances use. Limiting head travel speed's up data retrieval and partitioning is the way to accomplish this. Use the file system method and spread data all over the drive, resulting in more head travel. Remember the trick of partitioning the core track and sector's for near ssd speeds.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

This is wrong. You are saying there is a difference between the way an older user might use the disk and a younger user. If it is smarter and safer for an older user then why isn't it the same for a younger user ?
When you copy the disks over you have 6 file systems - 1 for each disk and any one of them easily corruptible on top of which you have 6 partitions any one of which could easily lose its partition table.
In the last 10 years all my disk losses have affected the entire disk so makes no difference whether you have partitions or not.
I cannot see why having a partition called Disk2015 is any different than having a file called Disk2015. I will concede that this does mean your final file destination does have an additional 7 characters added to it (Disk2015/) but other than this no other issue.
If you are copying over Disk2015 I suspect that almost all users probably never go back into the old files anyway so far more important that you make a second copy as well as keeping the older disks as a third backup.
I think that you are projecting something that you have used probably for a very long period (partitions) as still being the best way to do things.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Partitions are simply separate logical drives. Simpler for me to have different directories on one logical drive designation.

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

Have you ever made an error when using the erase command? You do not see older users as being more prone to making mistakes than younger users(referencing teck in general and data manipulation in particular)? Your response indicates to me that you are swimming in the apple world, not floundering in the windows pond. My impression from the OP's writing was that he uses Windows. Disk Manager make partitioning of a large disk very simple, and disk copy with ec checked makes coping the files a piece of cake. If interrupted for any reason it is straight forward to return and pickup where you left off. When connected the external drive's directory tree will appear the same as if all the older drives were connected and the pictures will be where you left them. The safety I refer to is the layer of protection from user error not drive failure. Anybody can mess-up anything anytime, partitioning confines the damage. The other big advantage is speed. NTDS stores data bits all over the drive requiring extensive drive head movement. Partitioning confines the area available thus limiting head travel and increasing read/right times noticeable. Of course the down side of this running out of room on a drive, which is why I recommend making the partitions/drives a bit bigger than the HD's he wants to consolidate.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Much better explanation/reasoning than someone simply saying "partition it".
Kudos.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

Lots to comment on here -
1. I have made lots of errors using the 'delete' key (erase ?).
2. I generally see older people making less mistakes than younger people. My favourite expression is 'a 26 year university graduate with no life experience'.
3. I am not swimming in the apple world. I don't even like apple stuff or the company attitudes. Since I was 28 I have been in the computer industry working for others and then myself. Even before I started in the industry I repaired analog computers. I have seen it all.
4. My backup programs, when interrupted for any reason, pick up where they stopped.
5. If you make errors so serious that you are screwed then you are operating beyond your area of competence and should even be using a computer. Not at this level anyway.
6. Partitioning confines nothing that properly performed backups can't.
7. What the OP is doing will be copying stuff off a selection of smaller drives onto a big drive. The copy process will stream this data so there will be little excessive head movement. If this is being done as a backup, and my experience of backups is the data is little, if ever, accessed again. And the data copying is best done by a backup program which has shown itself to be 2-3 times faster than explorer.
8. If the OP wants to start serious editing of data on the big drive then he/she needs to make sure the big drive is seriously under used because otherwise editing will soon cause out of disk errors.

If the OP wants to really get serious with the idea of backup then he needs 3 x big drives. Then he will have 2 copies (plus the original disks) and one spare drive. Now every 6 months you copy one of the drives to the blank drive. Then repeat. Why ? Because the best way to find a faulty drive is to actually use it to copy large volumes of data. Media errors etc show up that wouldn't be obvious otherwise.

You can get errors in the directories which might make access bad. Equally in the early days I saw so many times when the partitioning tables went bad and you were equally screwed. I still fail to see how partitioning will make it easier for old people only.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

No matter how many hard drives you have and how fat they are, you are still at risk for losing your irreplaceable files. Rather than listening to random complaints about "cloud stuff," why don't you try a service like Carbonite, and see if it works for you. I'm positive they will refund your annual cost if you're not satisfied. I've been using them for 10 years, and they have been the best solution for me. (I don't work for them!) >Alan

aellman Loc: Boston MA

And eventually we will all have so many hard drives they will fill up a room... the way computers did 50+ years ago. "That's one small step for a man, and one giant leap forward into the past." I live in the digital age, but I miss many things about the analog age; like being able to set the clock in my old car using a mechanical "hour" button and a "minute" button. How is having to look at a screen and going thru 4 menus to set the clock more advanced? >Alan

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

Well if you are doing this correctly then you should still only end up with 3-4 drives. As you noted the OP is going to a 5 or 6TB drive. In five years time he will transfer all his 5-6TB drives over to the 40TB drives and so on. But you need to get rid of the previous generation of drives otherwise your children will consider you a hoarder.
And I suppose it does matter when you started this. We went from 1 > 2 > 4TB drives and I am fighting my wife to stick with 4TB a while longer. Not so much because I begrudge the cost of moving from 4 > 8TB for example but because our backup (and offsite backup) means another 3 x 8TB (as well as the original) drives plus corresponding longer backup times. We had a big sort out a few days ago and by flattening PSDs (and some other stuff got sorted) she recovered 800GB. So I am stoked with that.
It is hard to tell but most photographers seem to have a period of 20 active years accumulating stuff. My wife has been doing it for well over 20 years although fortunately some of this was film and she doesn't seem to want to scan most of that. Then she got a D850, a friend who is even worse than her, starting to play with video, and being a graphic designer anyway a proclivity to 'play' with Photoshop. It is a constant battle to keep the output down.
Going back 25 years I remember a customer coming in complaining how he had employed someone fulltime to help him write a book. It took 6 months and then the HDD failed and they had no backups. Ever since then I am 'big' on backing up. I would tell a customer 3 times about the importance of backing up. Then I didn't anymore and had no sympathy when they lost stuff

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Anyone who doesn't grasp the importance of backups (and offsite backups) is playing Russian Roulette with their files. Carbonite helps me sleep soundly.