In case you would use anyway only one partition (because boot is elsewhere) not having any partitions at all is not more but less work.

Alignment issues are only really relevant in case of SSDs. The FS blocks need to align with the "physical" blocks of the chips used. (Actually this are also "only logical blocks", presented to you by the SSD controller, but at least this is fully transparent). If the alignment is messed up the SSD needs to consider at least 2 "physical" blocks (as presented by the controller to the OS) when accessing a single FS block. This leads to doubling the wear and halves the performance. (At least, in really unhappy scenarios this can even triple the access effort).

Where exactly a FS block starts and ends in relation to the underlying "physical" block(s) depends on all the "headers" that are "in front" of the FS blocks (or logically sometimes "a layer up", even "physically" this also only means "in front"). Partition tables are headers. LUKS headers are obviously also headers that need to be taken into account. LVM headers (and blocks, groups, volumes) are even one more layer to consider.

To make things more fun, like said, the "physical" blocks are only an abstraction presented by the controller. In some cases their size is configurable through the SDD controller firmware. (But this shouldn't be done without looking at the chips themself). The more interesting part is: The "physical" blocks can have "funny" sizes… (Something with some factor of 3 for example). Documentation on this is frankly spare…

The usual tools just assume some values that "work most of the time". But this whole problematic is actually quite new. Older version of all the related tools didn't know anything about SSD block alignment. (Like I said, they still don't know anything for sure, there is not way to know without looking a the docs and specs of the concrete device, but now at least they try to guess some "safe values"; with a large margin).

If you use partitions you'll end up with those "funny" few MiBs large offsets, which you have seen for sure. (If you don't use offsets it's very likely that the alignment is wrong).

Without partitions the other storage layers are much easier to align. You don't need to waste a few MiBs around your partitions, and especially don't need to remember (and maybe even recalculate) this stuff when changing something.

Not many people know about this whole dance as misalignment isn't a fatal problem. It will just kill your SSD much quicker, and half the performance (at least). But SSDs are so fast that most people would not notice without doing benchmarks… (Benchmarks of the different storage layers is actually the only way to test whether you got the alignment right).

If you don't look into this yourself you can only pray that all tools used were aware of this issues and guessed some values that work by chance properly with your hardware. But if you created partitions without the "safe" offsets (usually by setting values yourself and not letting the tool chose its "best guess") the alignment is quite likely wrong.

I'm came across this issue because I was wondering why Windows' fdisk always added seemingly "random" offsets around partitions it created. It turns out it's a safety measure. Newer Unix tools will do the same when using proposed defaults.

TL;DR: If you don't create a partition table on a NVM device you can just start your block layer directly on block zero and don't have to care about much as long as you also set the logical block size of that layer to the exact same value as the (probably firmware configurable) "physical" block size of the device. If you have a (GPT) partition table in front (which is by the way of varying size to make things even more funny) you need to add "safety offsets" to your partitions. Otherwise you're torturing your NVM device, resulting in servery crippled performance and lifetime.

I hope further details are now easy to google in case anybody likes to know more about this issue.

---

> Additionally, by partitioning the drive, you protect it from dumb programs who like to create partition tables.

The better protection would be do keep drives far away form operating systems and their tools that are known to randomly shred data… ;-)