Disk Array > 2TB

[James Wilkinson]

Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Hm, no partition used but the device /dev/sdb? How is that working? Is
> xfs special in that way?

No, it's possible. There just isn't much of a reason for it normally.

As for how it works, it works how you expect. I don't know if mount by
label works, but mount /dev/sdb /wherever should just work. The kernel
will look for a filesystem on the raw device, and not look for a
partition table, and will find the filesystem there.

Unix and Linux are nicely "orthogonal" like that. /dev/sdb is a block
device just like /dev/sdb1, and none of the filesystem utilities need
to look any further. Since the unpartitioned disk is very similar to
a partition on a disk, the software interface can be (and is)
practically identical, and everything just uses that interface.

The problem with not having a partition table on a device is that it's
then only possible to have the one filesystem on that device. This
usually is only of use to Windows users or people who want to dedicate
a RAID array to a database [1], and they are served just as well by
having a standard partition table.

James.

[1] Said category includes me, at work, but on an AIX box with a LVM-
based RAID. On AIX, LVM does the equivalent of partitioning.

-- 
E-mail address: james | The Inquirer was set up by Mike Magee (ticker: DODGY),
@westexe.demon.co.uk  | who co-founded well-known IT site The Register seven
                      | years ago after countless years editing and managing
                      | all manner of things which could be Aardvark Today and
                      | Fish Farming Monthly but weren't. -- The Inquirer