From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from atl4mhfb03.myregisteredsite.com ([209.17.115.61]:48789 "EHLO atl4mhfb03.myregisteredsite.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751014AbaFSBAz (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:00:55 -0400 Received: from atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) by atl4mhfb03.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5J10s3C021249 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:00:54 -0400 Received: from mailpod1.hostingplatform.com (atl4obmail02pod1.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com [10.30.71.114]) by atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5J10hCS009044 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:00:43 -0400 Message-ID: <53A23678.7070806@chinilu.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:01:44 -0700 From: George Mitchell Reply-To: george@chinilu.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: btrfs on whole disk (no partitions) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: A lot of good comments on this topic already. I would just add that on large (TB) drives, not partitioning can result in some pretty slow mount and umount times (even applies to mounting subvolumes). That is one of the frustrating side effects I have noticed with a non-partitioned 4TB drive on 32bit dual core pentium system. Additionally, with one big partitionless drive, any serious defect on any part of the drive can cost you the whole shebang, while, if partitioned, your loss is limited to the affected partition. I would also re-emphasize something that has been mentioned by someone else already, which is that most partitioning tools see a non-partitioned drive as being EMPTY, which can pose dangers and risk costly mistakes with the push of a button. So there are definitely some trade-offs. On 06/18/2014 12:29 PM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > Hi, > I created btrfs directly to disk using such a scheme (no partitions): > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=4096 > mkfs.btrfs -L dev_sda /dev/sda > mount /dev/sda /mnt > > cd /mnt > btrfs subvolume create __active > btrfs subvolume create __active/rootvol > btrfs subvolume create __active/usr > btrfs subvolume create __active/home > btrfs subvolume create __active/var > btrfs subvolume create __snapshots > > cd / > umount /mnt > mount -o subvol=__active/rootvol /dev/sda /mnt > mkdir /mnt/{usr,home,var} > mount -o subvol=__active/usr /dev/sda /mnt/usr > mount -o subvol=__active/home /dev/sda /mnt/home > mount -o subvol=__active/var /dev/sda /mnt/var > > # /etc/fstab > UID=ID / btrfs rw,relative,space_cache,subvol=__active/rootvol 0 0 > UUID=ID /usr btrfs rw,relative,space_cache,subvol=__active/usr 0 0 > UUID=ID /home btrfs rw,relative,space_cache,subvol=__active/home 0 0 > UUID=ID /var btrfs rw,relative,space_cache,subvol=__active/var 0 0 > > 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. > > I will be grateful for your feedback. > Best regards, > Daniel > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >