Lets say I have this partition configuration
https://easgs.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/suse13.jpg
and I want to add a 4 Tb hard drive for storage, the drive will be presented as /data in the filesystem, I have a Intel Board DH61WW with the latest bios update, is the procedure the same in yast or there is something else to do.
Windows can only boot from GPT on UEFI-based computers running 64-bit versions of Windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, and corresponding server versions. All versions of Windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7, and Vista can read GPT drives and use them for data — they just can’t boot from them without UEFI.
Other modern operating systems can also use GPT. Linux has built-in support for GPT. Apple’s Intel Macs no longer use Apple’s APT (Apple Partition Table) scheme and use GPT instead.
HINT: GPT Partition Table
If you need to create more than 4 primary partitions on one hard disk, you have to use the GPT partition type. This type removes the primary partitions number restriction, and supports partitions bigger than 2 TB as well.
To use GPT, run the YaST Partitioner, click the relevant disk name in the System View and choose Expert > Create New Partition Table > GPT.
UEFI is only needed if you want to boot from the gpt drive, but uefi isn’t needed for gpt storage only disks.
Partition and format drive in Yast and set the mount point there ( /data ). Ezee peezy 
You will need GPT but it should already be that. DOS format does not support over 2 gig. You do not need a EFI boot partition
… unless, of course, you partition the HD into 2 or more partitions under the 2-Gig size limit.
Don’t think the partition block numbering system will handle it at least without playing with the block size. Better to stick to GPT on drives larger then 2 gig. Fewer tears that way
I found this too
YaST creates a gpt_sync_mbr partition type when a gpt partition type is requested but the system does not use (U)EFI for booting (i.e. when it uses BIOS) and the system is x86 compatible (this means both x86 and x86_64) or the system is ppc but not ppc64le.
As far as I understand it it seems the basic logic behind is that YaST creates a gpt_sync_mbr partition type when a gpt partition type is requested but the system actually won’t be able to boot from it.
For example a system with traditional BIOS where a gpt partition is wanted. In this case a gpt_sync_mbr partition type must be actually used (that is basically a gpt partition where the first sector on the disk is a valid MBR) so that BIOS can boot it.
The problem with gpt_sync_mbr partition type is that it is not in compliance with the EFI GPT standard (cf. Hybrid MBRs ) and as a consequence it will cause problems here and there (just as an example rear does not work with it).
If possible I would recommend that on uses
either traditional BIOS with traditional MBR partition type
or (U)EFI with GPT partition type
but not a mix-up of both.
Agreed – YaST will perform all the needed tasks – assuming that the chosen File System supports 4 TB.
N.B.: Please note the difference between terabyte (TB) and tebibyte (TiB): one tebibyte (1 TiB) is approximately equal to 1.1 TB (usually - mostly - sometimes . . . ).
Why?It seems that Easgs will be using the new drive as a “data-only” volume attached to an existing (160 GB ??) drive with ext2/3/4 partitions.
this is why I don’t use xfs anymore
https://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php/513400-Problem-mounting-xfs-partition
Yes but the DOS format does not support over 2 tb The counters are not large enough to represent more GPT does. A new drive larger then 2 tb should already use the GPT format. This is a limitation just like o one will need more then 640K of memory ie a design limitation on the DOS partitioning.
And yes I used gig when I meant tera
I am going to create a single gpt partition and use the ext4 file system, not dos format.
Remember DOS in this case is the partitioning not the file system. Different animals. But GPT is fine and all can be done via Yast partitioning
openSUSE 11.2 / 13.1 – Live CD – XFS –
[INDENT=2]Please understand that, Silicon Graphics was a company specialised in producing high-performance Graphics Systems for Hollywood, government and defense applications, energy, and scientific and technical computing.[/INDENT]
[HR][/HR]I am happily using XFS for (large) user (home) partitions on an openSUSE 13.2 Desktop system.
I have no plans to change to anything else when the thing is migrated to 42.1 or 42.2.
Actually, I have two externals partitioned that way, DOS MBR, ext4 partitions under two Gig, have been working just fine and dandy that way for a long time.
Why, indeed?
ext4 should be just fine.
# mkfs.ext2 -b 2048 -L Beta_Test -v /dev/sr0
# mount -v -t ext2 -o async,noatime /dev/sr0 /mnt/DVD-RAM/
Yes, there are some issues with the disk write cache but, forcing the filesystem to use asynchronous I/O alleviate this to some extent.
[HR][/HR]To summarise:
Kinda off topic but UDF? This use case is what it’s designed for. ext2 on DVD-RAM? Yeah it’ll work but it’s no where near as portable should you need to get data off of it. Anyway…
[HR][/HR]
To summarise:
- Yes, setting up a filesystem on a device without using any partitioning is unusual.
The kernel and libblkid don’t care about partition schemes. It’s entirely up to the user and what they think their use case requires. There are advantages and disadvantages of all the options available: partitions vs LVM vs Btrfs. It’s really just a matter of use case requirements, and user familiarity. On Windows and macOS yes it’s true it’s unusual to not have a drive partitioned, they would see an unpartitioned drive formatted with anything from Linux as empty (except UDF!) So if the drive would ever come into contact with a non-Linux system it’s a good idea to partition it.
Yes, off topic . . . But, an example of a *NIX device with no partitioning . . .
[HR][/HR]Why ext2 on a DVD-RAM?
Yes, I could have used a zipped tar file to do this but, I preferred to trust “cp --archive” for the Test Case in question.
I only use partitioning, when I want partitions 
Well, there is one exception though, when you want to boot from the disk, you need an MBR. And in Linux, an MBR can only co-exist with a partition table. Thus you need a partition table when you want to boot from the disk (even if you need only one partition).
As the “bootable disk” is probably the use case mostly seen in (home) Linux systems (the system having only one disk), by far the majority of disks in Linux is partitioned. I assume that has led to the urban legend that in Linux all disks must be partitioned.