Re: raw devices or partitions?

[Sjoerd <sjoerd@sjomar.eu>]

On Saturday 26 September 2015 01:43:32 Duncan wrote:
> Sjoerd posted on Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:40:39 +0200 as excerpted:
> > Is it better to use raw devices for a RAID setup or make one partition
> > on the drive and then create your RAID from there?
> > Right now if have one setup that uses raw, but get messages "unknown
> > partition table" all the time in my logs.
> > I am planning to create a RAID 5 setup (seems to be stable these days?),
> > but wondering  to deal with  raw drives or partitions (4 at the moment).
> > In the wiki they're referring to raw devices in the examples, but that
> > could be outdated?
> 
> Raw device vs. partition (vs mdraid vs dmraid vs lvm) doesn't matter to
> btrfs.  They're all block devices.
> 
> That unknown partition table log entry is from elsewhere in the kernel,
> where it would normally read partition tables if there were any to read.
> It's simply telling you it couldn't find any, to help with diagnostics in
> case there's supposed to be one.  But if you deliberately used a raw
> device, there isn't supposed to be a partition table, so no big deal.
> 
> So just ignore the warning as the diagnostic aid for a case that doesn't
> apply to you, if you like.  Or if you find it irritating enough that
> isn't possible, then do the big partition thing and disappear the
> warning.  No big deal either way. =:^)
>

I went for the raw devices since that's more simple ;)
Weirdly enough on this raid5 setup I don't get those partition messages.
Maybe it has something to do with the complaining machine being external USB 
disks... 

Cheers,
Sjoerd