Hello,
I’m new Fedora (f25-beta) user considering to fully (after having Fedora on my netbook) migrate to Fedora.
At the moment I run Debian (Sid) and have two hard disks: 1x1TB and 1x2TB (one old 1TB disk recently died) and have the following layout:
sda: 1 - BIOS boot 2 - md-raid1 (root, xfs) 3 - md-raid1 (home, xfs)
sdb: 1 - BIOS boot 2 - md-raid1 (root, xfs) 3 - md-raid1 (home, xfs) 4 - swap 5 - backup partition
Now I’ve a feeling that, somehow, Fedora favours usage of LVM partitions…Otoh, I’ve been told that using LVM on top of RAID(1) might not be the best solution, so wonder whether you recommend to keep the same layout as on Debian or to put my raid-1 volumes in LVM containers?
Another concern I have is in regard to separate /boot partition which I was not using on Linux for quite some time, but see that Fedora’s automatic layout does create it?
Sincerely, Gour
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 13:58:22 +0200 Saša Janiška gour@atmarama.com wrote:
Hello,
I’m new Fedora (f25-beta) user considering to fully (after having Fedora on my netbook) migrate to Fedora.
May the force be with you. ;-)
At the moment I run Debian (Sid) and have two hard disks: 1x1TB and 1x2TB (one old 1TB disk recently died) and have the following layout:
sda: 1 - BIOS boot 2 - md-raid1 (root, xfs) 3 - md-raid1 (home, xfs)
sdb: 1 - BIOS boot 2 - md-raid1 (root, xfs) 3 - md-raid1 (home, xfs) 4 - swap 5 - backup partition
Now I’ve a feeling that, somehow, Fedora favours usage of LVM partitions…Otoh, I’ve been told that using LVM on top of RAID(1) might not be the best solution, so wonder whether you recommend to keep the same layout as on Debian or to put my raid-1 volumes in LVM containers?
I don't know about the raid question, since I don't use raid. I think the installer automatically selects lvm if you let it, but I never do. I always use a custom install to pre-created partitions (and never install over the currently working version, to save lots of hassle and headache if problems occur). The upgrade becomes a much more relaxed process when there is a working alternative available.
Another concern I have is in regard to separate /boot partition which I was not using on Linux for quite some time, but see that Fedora’s automatic layout does create it?
I don't use a /boot under root, and haven't with Fedora, so I'm not sure if that is a problem or not. Until you asked your question, I hadn't even thought about the fact that /boot could be in the / partition, though I knew it. I use a separate 1 G boot partition for each linux OS I have installed. Maybe someone else can speak to this. There must have been a reason lost in the mists of time. And probably inapplicable now, given how much change there has been.
Using a custom layout, and not allocating a /boot partition should work for this in the installer, too. I can't see a reason it wouldn't, and if it does you don't have to worry about it.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 10:33:16 -0700 stan stanl-fedorauser@vfemail.net wrote: I use a separate 1 G boot partition for
each linux OS I have installed. Maybe someone else can speak to this. There must have been a reason lost in the mists of time. And probably inapplicable now, given how much change there has been.
I think the reason was that booting was limited by disk geometry at some point. The boot partitions were always placed near the front of the disk, below a certain size.
Here's some more information. http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/33555/what-is-the-max-partition-supp... http://serverfault.com/questions/334663/what-is-the-recommended-size-for-a-l...
Since both of your disks are less than 2 TB, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that you can have an / integrated boot.
On 10/29/16 07:58, Saša Janiška wrote:
Hello,
I’m new Fedora (f25-beta) user considering to fully (after having Fedora on my netbook) migrate to Fedora.
Questions specific to the test release (F25 has not been released yet), should be directed to the fedora-test list.
At the moment I run Debian (Sid) and have two hard disks: 1x1TB and 1x2TB (one old 1TB disk recently died) and have the following layout:
sda: 1 - BIOS boot 2 - md-raid1 (root, xfs) 3 - md-raid1 (home, xfs)
sdb: 1 - BIOS boot 2 - md-raid1 (root, xfs) 3 - md-raid1 (home, xfs) 4 - swap 5 - backup partition
Now I’ve a feeling that, somehow, Fedora favours usage of LVM partitions…Otoh, I’ve been told that using LVM on top of RAID(1) might not be the best solution, so wonder whether you recommend to keep the same layout as on Debian or to put my raid-1 volumes in LVM containers?
Don't know where you heard that little tidbit. I can tell you that LVM across multiple disks is terrible. When you have a disk die suddenly, all LVs which have PVs on that disk are unrecoverable, UNLESS you are using a redundant raid partition. When using redundant raid, and you loose one disk, you can run in degraded mode until you replaced that failed disk, then you can rebuild the missing portion from the redundant part. Redundant raid is all raids EXCEPT raid-0 which is just striping of the data across multiple disks. All other forms of raid (1, 3, 5, 6, 10) are able to survive a single disk failure and can rebuild when the failed disk is replaced. raid 6 can even survive 2 disk failures!).
Another concern I have is in regard to separate /boot partition which I was not using on Linux for quite some time, but see that Fedora’s automatic layout does create it?
Probably a more historical artifact these days, but it could come into play if you are using a filesystem that grub2 cannot boot from.
Sincerely, Gour
Kevin Cummings cummings@kjchome.homeip.net writes:
Questions specific to the test release (F25 has not been released yet), should be directed to the fedora-test list.
Well, I believe these questions are general ones and not tied to specific (F25) release….
Don't know where you heard that little tidbit. I can tell you that LVM across multiple disks is terrible. When you have a disk die suddenly, all LVs which have PVs on that disk are unrecoverable, UNLESS you are using a redundant raid partition.
OK. Thank you for confirmation of my ’knowledge’. ;)
When using redundant raid, and you loose one disk, you can run in degraded mode until you replaced that failed disk, then you can rebuild the missing portion from the redundant part.
Right. And that’s one reason why I e.g. prefer non-btrfs raid-1 where replacing failed disk is more complicated affair than with md0.
Probably a more historical artifact these days, but it could come into play if you are using a filesystem that grub2 cannot boot from.
OK. Clear.
Now I have to just check whether F25’s GRUB is new-enough to handle XFS on root.
Sincerely, Gour
On 10/29/2016 01:58 PM, Saša Janiška wrote:
Another concern I have is in regard to separate /boot partition which I was not using on Linux for quite some time, but see that Fedora’s automatic layout does create it?
A separate /boot partition makes the boot process more powerful. For example, you can't encrypt the / filesytem if it has boot inside, as grub would not be able to read the kernel and the initrd.
Regards.
Roberto Ragusa mail@robertoragusa.it writes:
A separate /boot partition makes the boot process more powerful. For example, you can't encrypt the / filesytem if it has boot inside, as grub would not be able to read the kernel and the initrd.
Thanks…I was not thinking about e.g. encryption…installed F25 with separate /boot using btrfs/raid1.
Sincerely, Gour
Hi,
I'm late to this, but i can't recommend Btrfs multiple device stuff for those unaware of the state. While stable, the problem is it doesn't have any of the notification capabilities as mdadm or lvm raid. Also, it's pretty unsuitable for rootfs because unattended degraded boot isn't possible.
So while you're unlikely to lose data, and it will catch and fix even the most trivial, transient corruptions, you definitely need to make sure it fits your use case requirements.
Chris Murphy
-
Chris Murphy -
Gour -
Kevin Cummings -
Roberto Ragusa -
stan