I'm just about to install F7 onto one of my machines. I have FC6
installed and happy on one of my boxes and Mandriva on another. I'm more used to managing FS:EXT3 or EXT2 partitions than FC6's LVM. If I set up the new box with FS:EXT3 at the partition stage will F7 have any problems? I have a 40Gb chunk of IDE and a 250Gb of SATA to play with.
I ignored LVM and went for the traditional EXT3 partitions with FC7.
Didn't have any problems with that. I've, previously, had plenty of problems with LVM, and I need to be able to *EASILY* put drives in and out of different boxes, in different combinations, so I don't like LVM.
I need a dual boot DOS and Linux box. Before LVM, I just installed a Linux distro (Ubuntu or Fedora), then gparted the ext down to make room for FreeDOS. Well, I tried that with Fe 7, and learned a lot (but not enough) about LVM. Unless I missed something, it is very, very hard to downsize a physical partition associated with LVM. I did a resize2fs to shrink the filesystem. Then I did a lvreduce to reduce the logical volume, and I ended up with the planned 3G unallocated within the physical partition after that, but try as I might, I could not get the physical partition to shrink. When I tried pvresize, even though I was supposed to have 3G unallocated within the physical partition, I kept getting an error and it refused to do the operation. I found this "pvresize will refuse to shrink PhysicalVolume if it has allocated extents after where its new end would be", but as I said I supposed had unallocated extents. Finally I just reinstalled Fe 7 with without LVM.
I had an unusual application, and I can see where LVM might be great if you want to grow a (logical) volume to span hard drives. I can also see for the casual user who would never rezise his/her volumes, LVM is very transparent. Good luck!
I need a dual boot DOS and Linux box. Before LVM, I just installed
a
Linux distro (Ubuntu or Fedora), then gparted the ext down to make room for FreeDOS.
Opps, that's not totally true in retrospect - sometimes I left some unused space when I installed a distro so I could come back with FreeDOS. However, I couldn't control the size of the physical partition that was created for LVM when I did the Fe7 install. No matter what size I specified, it took the entire remaining free space.
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
would be", but as I said I supposed had unallocated extents. Finally I just reinstalled Fe 7 with without LVM.
I had an unusual application, and I can see where LVM might be great if you want to grow a (logical) volume to span hard drives. I can also see for the casual user who would never rezise his/her volumes, LVM is very transparent. Good luck!
It's transparent unless it breaks. I do the same as you advise here, throw out LVM at install time. All the machines here are laptops with only Fedora as the bootable OS, and everything but /boot in one / partition, so LVM is a completely senseless default.
-Andy
It's transparent unless it breaks. I do the same as you advise here, throw out LVM at install time. All the machines here are laptops with only Fedora as the bootable OS, and everything but /boot in one / partition, so LVM is a completely senseless default.
LVM is great.. for big server boxes with many users and unknown usage requirements. I turn it off. I'd rather a single disk was straight partitions (eg a laptop) and anything else gets two disks with striped MD0 swap and mirrored MD1 file systems. IDE disks are just too unreliable for anything but mirroring
Alan Cox wrote:
It's transparent unless it breaks. I do the same as you advise here, throw out LVM at install time. All the machines here are laptops with only Fedora as the bootable OS, and everything but /boot in one / partition, so LVM is a completely senseless default.
LVM is great.. for big server boxes with many users and unknown usage requirements. I turn it off. I'd rather a single disk was straight partitions (eg a laptop) and anything else gets two disks with striped MD0 swap and mirrored MD1 file systems. IDE disks are just too unreliable for anything but mirroring
Care to elaborate on that last statement? Are you talking about the disks themselves or the IDE interface or ???? If "IDE" disks are unreliable then what disks are reliable?
Care to elaborate on that last statement? Are you talking about the disks themselves or the IDE interface or ???? If "IDE" disks are unreliable then what disks are reliable?
The disks themselves. I've yet to meet a reliable disk, ever year or two one dies on me.
Alan
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 12:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Care to elaborate on that last statement? Are you talking about the disks themselves or the IDE interface or ???? If "IDE" disks are unreliable then what disks are reliable?
The disks themselves. I've yet to meet a reliable disk, ever year or two one dies on me.
Do you leave them spinning all the time or spin them up and down? We don't have issues like that, but we never shut down our servers except when we must perform maintenance. It's the spinup-spindown- spinup cycles that kill the bearings (heat up, cool down, heat up again).
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com - - CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com - - - - What is a "free" gift? Aren't all gifts free? - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 12:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Care to elaborate on that last statement? Are you talking about the disks themselves or the IDE interface or ???? If "IDE" disks are unreliable then what disks are reliable?
The disks themselves. I've yet to meet a reliable disk, ever year or two one dies on me.
I think the real question is, how many disks do you have?
Out of a hundred say one dead every year would not be too bad. This Western Digital ide is 6 years old.
Do you leave them spinning all the time or spin them up and down? We don't have issues like that, but we never shut down our servers except when we must perform maintenance. It's the spinup-spindown- spinup cycles that kill the bearings (heat up, cool down, heat up again).
- Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com -
- CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com -
-What is a "free" gift? Aren't all gifts free? -
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 12:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The disks themselves. I've yet to meet a reliable disk, ever year or two one dies on me.
How do you treat them?
With all due respect to the Google research that says hot drives aren't a problem, I don't buy it. Warm drives, maybe, but I've seen plenty that get painfully hot, and those drives did become unreliable. When I've built, or rebuilt, systems so that the drives don't roast, they seem to last well.
You also want to minimise vibration. Use all four screw mount points, and firmly. If you hear it buzzing, that's not good.
-
Alan Cox -
Andy Green -
Ed Greshko -
Karl Larsen -
ke5c＠hot.rr.com -
Rick Stevens -
Tim