Are there actually differences in performance regarding the selected file system on which the bfs is initialized?
I don’t understand your question. BFS is BFS and there is no other underlying filesystem. What are you doing exactly?
If i creare a partition on a hdd i format a filesystem. Then i install haiku on it, i Initialize the bfs on it.
I use in the most times ext2, but is tgere a diffent if i use fat instead of ext2?
I inizialized a 2tb blanc hdd with bfs, but haiku does not boot from it.
You can’t install Haiku on anything else but BFS.
What kind of partition you creates is irrelevant, because you will later format it as BFS and from that point there is no significant ddifference, other than the partition editors possibly identifies it wrongly later in other OS.
My BFS Data partition identified as zfs in Linux, but this should have no performane impact.
The first step that you describe as “format” is actually creating the partition with a partition type (that´s only a flag in the partition´s header (everyone go easy at me if I´ve used the wrong terminology 
). It doesn´t really have any significance as far as I know. The second step that you called “initializing” is the actual formatting, with BFS in your case. So, to sum it up, it is good etiquette to set the correct partition type but not much more.
Thats is what i want to know.
Thanks all
1 Like
You partition your drive - if using MBR (but you could use Apple too, or raw), it was a case of telling the drive what filesystem type each logical volume was. With non-MBR I have no idea if that matters anymore. After partitioning it is formatted by each respective OS.
I guess not using BFS as the file system type has one disadvantage - your other OS might think it can mount the filesystem.