From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout06.t-online.de ([194.25.134.19]:35732 "EHLO mailout06.t-online.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755334Ab3EAIrL (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2013 04:47:11 -0400 Date: 01 May 2013 10:46:00 +0200 From: Hullen@t-online.de (Helmut Hullen) To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Best Practice - Partition, or not? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: helmut@hullen.de Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hallo, Alexander, Du meintest am 01.05.13: > If I want to manage a complete disk with btrfs, what's the "Best > Practice"? Would it be best to create the btrfs filesystem on > "/dev/sdb", or would it be better to create just one partition from > start to end and then do "mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1"? > Would the same recomendation hold true, if we're talking about huge > disks, like 4TB or so? I've tested both versions on a 3 disk bundle of 3 TByte disks (data raid0, meta raid1). mkfs.btrfs ... /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd made some more problems, especially when recognizing or deleting the disk(s). Maybe that's a problem more related to "util-linux" (especially "wipefs" and "blkid"). Partitioning first with gdisk and then mkfs.btrfs ... /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 runs better (perhaps without problems). Viele Gruesse! Helmut