Do you allocate all disk space to logical volumes duringinstallation?
/boot can't be LVM
There's no technical reason why / can't be LVM though. In fact, the
"logvol" and "volgroup" LVM examples from the RHEL5 installation manuals
put / on a logvol. This is from the "Kickstart options" section
allation_Guide/s1-kickstart2-options.html). If you use the "default"
disk partitioning layout, it also puts / on a logvol.
Personally, I create the partitions on my systems with a little space
for growth and leave the rest of the disk space unallocated. On a 146G
drive, I end up with the following:
/dev/mapper/ROOTVG-rootlv 5.0G 3.2G 1.6G 68% /
/dev/mapper/ROOTVG-tmplv 2.0G 100M 1.8G 6% /tmp
/dev/mapper/ROOTVG-optlv 9.7G 499M 8.8G 6% /opt
/dev/mapper/ROOTVG-varlv 5.0G 267M 4.5G 6% /var
/dev/mapper/ROOTVG-crashlv 64G 180M 63G 1% /var/crash
/dev/cciss/c0d0p1 99M 26M 69M 27% /boot
And a swap logvol (14G)
/dev/mapper/ROOTVG-swaplv partition 14352376
There's 36G unallocated and, if necessary, I can easily shrink a number
of partitions to reclaim space. The crash partition is a default size
for my systems because we tend to allocate the max memory size as a
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Holter
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:52 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: Re: Do you allocate all disk space to logical volumes
On 9/23/08, mark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Joey Prestia wrote:
> > Erling Ringen Elvsrud wrote:
> >> Hello list,
> >> It is often hard to know how much space is needed for
> >> different mount points. Increasing the size of a filesystem is
> >> described as a safer operation than reducing the size. Do you think
> >> saving space (not absolutely needed) for later is a good idea /
> > It is a very good practice to use LVM partitions for any that you
> > believe may need to grow later down the road. And we never partition
> > whole disk. You may never need it. But if you do need that space
> > it is invaluable to not have to shut down a machine and add a drive.
> > have found It to be very handy to have the foresight to do this and
> > it many times to be advantageous.
> Yup. As I said in my article "Upgrading Linux" in the July '07
> ceased publication, dammit), I recommend LVM for /usr, /home, and
> for /opt (since so much software these days wants to be there). I
> use LVM for /boot or /
> Size: 100M or so for /boot; 4G-8G for /, 20G for /usr, 4G for /var,
> /tmp, and lots and lots for /opt and /home.
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe
What's the reason for not using LVM for / and /boot?
redhat-list mailing list
redhat-list mailing list
|All times are GMT. The time now is 02:33 PM.|
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.