From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from walhalla.sjomar.eu ([141.105.125.198]:49924 "EHLO mail.sjomar.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751921AbbIZO6b (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:58:31 -0400 Received: from hoefnix.localnet (a83-163-227-207.adsl.xs4all.nl [83.163.227.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: sjoerd@sjomar.eu) by mail.sjomar.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2087138B48 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:58:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Sjoerd To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: raw devices or partitions? Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:58:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1989142.6nohd6ZIPH@hoefnix> In-Reply-To: References: <2432089.CrOTrZyfAm@hoefnix> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 could be outdated?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