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 could be outdated?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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
