From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]:37820 "EHLO mail-vc0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757627AbaFSJLK convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:11:10 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hy4so1946580vcb.20 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 02:11:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <2316027.LZEnVG8laK@xev> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:11:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: btrfs on whole disk (no partitions) From: Imran Geriskovan To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 6/19/14, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:39 Daniel Cegiełka wrote: >> Everything works fine. Is such a solution is recommended? In my >> opinion, the creation of the partitions seems to be completely >> unnecessary if you can use btrfs. > If you don't need to have a boot loader or swap space on the disk > then there's no reason to have a partition table. Note that it's often good > to have some swap space even if everything can fit in RAM because > Linux sometimes pages things out to make more space for cache. Grub installs itself and boots from Partitionless Btrfs disk. It is handy for straight forward installations. However, IF you need boot partition (ie. initramfs and kernel to boot from encrypted root) its another story. Swap is an issue. But you may try zram (compressed ram swap). I've got some crashes on 3.14. Thus, waiting for it to stabilize. Imran