Do you allocate all disk space to logical volumes duringinstallation?

[Broekman, Maarten]

/boot can't be LVM
(http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.2/html/Inst
allation_Guide/ch04s18s04s02.html).

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
(http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.2/html/Inst
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
0      -1

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
crash partition.

Maarten Broekman
Email: maarten.broekman at fmr.com


-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.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
duringinstallation?

On 9/23/08, mark <m.roth2006 at rcn.com> 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
commonly
> >> described as a safer operation than reducing the size. Do you think
> >> saving space (not absolutely needed) for later is a good idea /
common
> practice?
> >
> > 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
the
> > whole disk. You may never need it. But if you do need that space
later
> > it is invaluable to not have to shut down a machine and add a drive.
I
> > have found It to be very handy to have the foresight to do this and
used
> > it many times to be advantageous.
>
> Yup. As I said in my article "Upgrading Linux" in the July '07
SysAdmin
> (now
> ceased publication, dammit), I recommend LVM for /usr, /home, and
*very*
> much
> for /opt (since so much software these days wants to be there). I
would
> *never*
> use LVM for /boot or /
>
> Size: 100M or so for /boot; 4G-8G for /, 20G for /usr, 4G for /var,
ditto
> for
> /tmp, and lots and lots for /opt and /home.
>
>        mark
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>

What's the reason for not using LVM for / and /boot?
-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list