Correct, but there is a caveat: There are always buggy programs (even including OSes) that go blundering in where they shouldn't. If a utility or OS doesn't understand Filesystem X but decides to go ahead and write to the partition on which it's stored, there will be problems. This sort of issue is quite rare today, but if you were to try out (say) every partitioning tool in existence, along with a dozen exotic filesystems, one of the partitioners is bound to have a bug that will cause problems.
Originally Posted by 23dornot23d
GPT has advantages on smaller drives, but they're fairly modest: GPT includes a backup of all its data structures, which protects it against accidental erasure; data structures are given CRC codes, which helps the OS or disk utility detect corruption; partitions have names that can help you tell what specific partitions are for; there's no distinction between primary, extended, and logical partitions, which simplifies partition layout; cylinder/head/sector (CHS) addressing is completely eliminated, except for the protective MBR partition; and boot loaders (particularly GRUB 2) don't rely on code being stored in unallocated space, which is a dangerous but common practice in MBR boot loaders. IMHO, these advantages are great enough, considered together, to recommend GPT for Linux-only installations or for data-only (non-boot) disks when all the OSes are capable of reading GPT. That said, there are problems with GPT, mostly because of utilities that are still a little rough around the edges with GPT. The worst (and thankfully rare) of these problems are some buggy BIOSes that give booting headaches.
Would I gain anything from a change from MBR to GPT ..... my biggest hard drive is a Terrabyte ...... my guess is untill I get a bigger drive than 4 terra than its best to stay as I am .... especially if the installers are not picking it up properly yet.
Of course, all this is aside from the big issue, which is the 2 TiB limit of MBR. Note that although it's possible to create an MBR partition layout that reaches just shy of 4 TiB, that's stretching things and imposes unusual restraints on partition sizes and locations; 2 TiB is the practical limit, at least with 512-byte sectors.
It sounds like your drive is slow to get warmed up. You might check your BIOS settings to see if there's an option to delay the boot process a bit longer for drive startup. If not, it's conceivable that disabling the "fast boot" option in the BIOS would help. That option normally disables a lengthy RAM check. If the BIOS activates the hard disk before the RAM check, then this would give it time to spin up. I'm not positive this would work, though.
but I have been having problems with the terra drive ..... mainly due to it being slow to get recognised at boot up ........ seems I have to cold boot and then do a warm reboot to get it to pick up properly once the system sees it ok then alls fine ......
If the problem is in the Linux drivers, perhaps there's a driver option that would cause the driver to wait longer for new drives to spin up. I haven't looked into this, though.
This shouldn't be a problem if you use UUIDs or labels to identify drives in /etc/fstab, as in:
but if it does not pick it up properly things go to a crawl and I get fsync problems ...... it can also cause problems when I have all 3 USB drive plugged in at the same time as the order of them can end up set up differently .......
If that filesystem is on /dev/sdb one time and /dev/sdc another, it won't matter. It's also possible to use UUIDs in GRUB, if the naming issues cause boot problems.
UUID=3631a288-673e-40f5-9e96-6539fec468e9 /home reiserfs defaults 0 0