From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56911 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757850Ab3EAJRH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2013 05:17:07 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UXT9p-0001lt-8O for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 11:17:01 +0200 Received: from pro75-5-88-162-203-35.fbx.proxad.net ([88.162.203.35]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 May 2013 11:17:01 +0200 Received: from g2p.code by pro75-5-88-162-203-35.fbx.proxad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 May 2013 11:17:01 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Gabriel de Perthuis Subject: Re: Best Practice - Partition, or not? Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Hello > > 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"? Partitions (GPT) are always more flexible and future-proof. If you ever need to shrink the btrfs filesystem and give the space to another partition, or do a conversion to lvm/bcache/luks (shameless plug: https://github.com/g2p/blocks ), it'd be stupid to be locked into your current setup for want of a few megabytes of space before your filesystem. > Would the same recomendation hold true, if we're talking about huge > disks, like 4TB or so? More so, since it can be infeasible to move this much data.