On 02/04/13 14:13, Joe Zeff wrote:
As a home user, I don't need to resize things dynamically, and LVM is the solution to a problem I don't have.
Over the last couple of years I've managed to install Fedora a few times minus LVM but I never seem to get the directory structure optimized, in fact far from it.
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes. I may not get to try it until F-19 is released but would like to have an example on hand, might be inspired to try redoing an F-18 LVM installation.
Bob
Am 02.04.2013 20:39, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
On 02/04/13 14:13, Joe Zeff wrote:
As a home user, I don't need to resize things dynamically, and LVM is the solution to a problem I don't have.
Over the last couple of years I've managed to install Fedora a few times minus LVM but I never seem to get the directory structure optimized, in fact far from it.
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes
this depends COMPLETLY on your use-case but i agree that LVM is useless for most workloads i sue it only for the datadisk of the fileserver to have the option add anotehr 1 TB disk to the existung 5 and resize the volume
i have machines with /boot, rootfs, /var/log, /var/cache, /var/spool and /tmp as own partitions or even own disks in case of virtual servers while the "backup buddy" of the same machine has only /boot and /
for my workstations i have /boot, rootfs and data /home is a bind-mount at data
but even here - the sizes are depending on your workload 10 GB would have been enough for my rootfs, but the setup is planned to run > 10 years without a re-install, my co-developer has the same partitioning and his rootfs has 11 GB in use while we both have the samle working-tasks and i try to minimize
[harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ LANG=C; df Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 ext4 29G 6.1G 23G 22% / /dev/md0 ext4 477M 30M 447M 7% /boot /dev/md2 ext4 3.6T 1.6T 2.0T 45% /mnt/data
[harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /etc/fstab | grep bin /mnt/data/home /home none bind /mnt/data/.tmp /tmp none bind /mnt/data/.tmp /var/tmp none bind /mnt/data/www/thelounge.net /Volumes/dune/www-servers none bind /mnt/data/www/phpincludes /Volumes/dune/www-servers/phpincludes none bind
Sorry for the top post. I use F17 without LVM. My HD is fdisked as follows
/boot 500 MB / 10 GB /home 300 GB /swap 3 GB
I do not like LVM since it came out.
If you install a lot of programmes, you might want to use 15 or 20 GB for /.
Hth dave Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Mobilicity
-----Original Message----- From: "Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA" bobgoodwin@wildblue.net Sender: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:39:06 To: Community support for Fedora usersusers@lists.fedoraproject.org Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Avoiding LVM -
On 02/04/13 14:13, Joe Zeff wrote:
As a home user, I don't need to resize things dynamically, and LVM is the solution to a problem I don't have.
Over the last couple of years I've managed to install Fedora a few times minus LVM but I never seem to get the directory structure optimized, in fact far from it.
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes. I may not get to try it until F-19 is released but would like to have an example on hand, might be inspired to try redoing an F-18 LVM installation.
Bob
Am 02.04.2013 20:52, schrieb Tom Horsley:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:39:06 -0400 Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes.
What is wrong with one partition named / on whole disk? Everything has room to grow then :-)
it is idiotic in the case of a damaged OS you have to backup your data before re-isntall
it is idiotic in case of /boot not seperated for hwatever FS-changes, not so long ago ext4 was new and it was no problem to convert the rootfs and data parttions to ext4 but /boot needed to stay at ext3
at least you should seperate /boot, sysroot and your data not only on Linux, on Windows it was also idiotic do save your data at c:\ and blindl use this often chossed pre-setup of most vendors
On 02.04.2013 20:57, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.04.2013 20:52, schrieb Tom Horsley:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:39:06 -0400 Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes.
What is wrong with one partition named / on whole disk? Everything has room to grow then :-)
it is idiotic in the case of a damaged OS you have to backup your data before re-isntall
it is idiotic in case of /boot not seperated for hwatever FS-changes, not so long ago ext4 was new and it was no problem to convert the rootfs and data parttions to ext4 but /boot needed to stay at ext3
at least you should seperate /boot, sysroot and your data not only on Linux, on Windows it was also idiotic do save your data at c:\ and blindl use this often chossed pre-setup of most vendors
It really depends on your use case. It might be idiotic to recommend something to all people without knowing their use case. I agree that for some deployments separate root and data partition is must have but not for all. I have a lot of qemu/kvm images that for simplicity only have two partitions (root and swap) or sometimes root only.
About avoiding LVM... it's like avoiding SELinux to minimize potential problems - it becomes an obsession for some admins. If you have well established partition layout and don't change it for lifetime of your OS - don't go with LVM. But for dual boot installs and rapid disk layout changes LVM is very valuable.
Mateusz Marzantowicz
Am 02.04.2013 22:43, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
On 02.04.2013 20:57, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.04.2013 20:52, schrieb Tom Horsley:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:39:06 -0400 Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes.
What is wrong with one partition named / on whole disk? Everything has room to grow then :-)
it is idiotic in the case of a damaged OS you have to backup your data before re-isntall
it is idiotic in case of /boot not seperated for hwatever FS-changes, not so long ago ext4 was new and it was no problem to convert the rootfs and data parttions to ext4 but /boot needed to stay at ext3
at least you should seperate /boot, sysroot and your data not only on Linux, on Windows it was also idiotic do save your data at c:\ and blindl use this often chossed pre-setup of most vendors
It really depends on your use case. It might be idiotic to recommend something to all people without knowing their use case. I agree that for some deployments separate root and data partition is must have but not for all. I have a lot of qemu/kvm images that for simplicity only have two partitions (root and swap) or sometimes root only
if this are only play-around-systems with no data - fine from the moment on you have data on your machine it is idiotic in ANY usecase to not seperate them from the OS
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 02.04.2013 22:43, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
On 02.04.2013 20:57, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.04.2013 20:52, schrieb Tom Horsley:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:39:06 -0400 Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes.
What is wrong with one partition named / on whole disk? Everything has room to grow then :-)
it is idiotic in the case of a damaged OS you have to backup your data before re-isntall
it is idiotic in case of /boot not seperated for hwatever FS-changes, not so long ago ext4 was new and it was no problem to convert the rootfs and data parttions to ext4 but /boot needed to stay at ext3
at least you should seperate /boot, sysroot and your data not only on Linux, on Windows it was also idiotic do save your data at c:\ and blindl use this often chossed pre-setup of most vendors
It really depends on your use case. It might be idiotic to recommend something to all people without knowing their use case. I agree that for some deployments separate root and data partition is must have but not for all. I have a lot of qemu/kvm images that for simplicity only have two partitions (root and swap) or sometimes root only
if this are only play-around-systems with no data - fine from the moment on you have data on your machine it is idiotic in ANY usecase to not seperate them from the OS
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Hi Bob,
Maybe this will help you to make a right decision:
9.13.5. Recommended Partitioning Scheme http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Installation_Guide/s2-dis...
Regards, Grzegorz Witkowski
On 02/04/13 20:12, Grzegorz Witkowski wrote:
Hi Bob,
Maybe this will help you to make a right decision:
9.13.5. Recommended Partitioning Scheme http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Installation_Guide/s2-dis...
Regards, Grzegorz Witkowski
Yes, that is good information, helps to better apply what I have collected so far.
Thanks,
Bob
On 4/2/2013 9:49 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 02/04/13 20:12, Grzegorz Witkowski wrote:
Hi Bob,
Maybe this will help you to make a right decision:
9.13.5. Recommended Partitioning Scheme http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Installation_Guide/s2-dis...
Regards, Grzegorz Witkowski
Yes, that is good information, helps to better apply what I have collected so far.
Thanks,
Bob
I like to put /opt and /usr/local on separate partitions also, as that way they don't have to be reloaded when I do a fresh install.
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:18:47 -0400 Lester M Petrie wrote:
I like to put /opt and /usr/local on separate partitions also, as that way they don't have to be reloaded when I do a fresh install.
I've found that "bind" mounts are your friend.
I've got a SSD system disk with room for a couple of versions of fedora to be installed in two partitions, Then for things I want to keep around between upgrades, I make /home a bind mount to /reallybigdisk/home (as an example).
That way I don't have to decide how to parcel out space on my "really big disk", I just make bind mounts to directories on that disk.
On 04/03/2013 10:33 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:18:47 -0400 Lester M Petrie wrote:
I like to put /opt and /usr/local on separate partitions also, as that way they don't have to be reloaded when I do a fresh install.
I've found that "bind" mounts are your friend.
I've got a SSD system disk with room for a couple of versions of fedora to be installed in two partitions, Then for things I want to keep around between upgrades, I make /home a bind mount to /reallybigdisk/home (as an example).
That way I don't have to decide how to parcel out space on my "really big disk", I just make bind mounts to directories on that disk.
This is probably what I would do if I was starting from scratch today. The separate partitions date to early Fedora on a different machine with multiple, much smaller disks. When I migrated to the current machine, it was easier just migrate that structure without thinking about it.
On 02/04/13 09:18, Lester M Petrie wrote:
I like to put /opt and /usr/local on separate partitions also, as that way they don't have to be reloaded when I do a fresh install.
-- Lester M Petrie
Those directories are empty here presently.
ll /opt total 0
ll /usr/local total 40 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 bin drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 etc drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 games drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 include drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 lib drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 lib64 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 libexec drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 sbin drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root 4096 Jan 9 12:55 share drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 src
Nothing in the subdirectories either ...
On 04/03/13 23:19, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 02/04/13 09:18, Lester M Petrie wrote:
I like to put /opt and /usr/local on separate partitions also, as that way they don't have to be reloaded when I do a fresh install.
-- Lester M Petrie
Those directories are empty here presently.
ll /opt total 0
ll /usr/local total 40 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 bin drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 etc drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 games drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 include drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 lib drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 lib64 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 libexec drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 sbin drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root 4096 Jan 9 12:55 share drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Jul 19 2012 src
Nothing in the subdirectories either ...
That is because you haven't put anything there.....
I have plenty of stuff in /usr/local which I've built manually since they were either home-grown or didn't have rpms to install. Put it there and it is available to all users.
On 03/04/13 11:31, Ed Greshko wrote:
That is because you haven't put anything there.....
I have plenty of stuff in /usr/local which I've built manually since they were either home-grown or didn't have rpms to install. Put it there and it is available to all users.
Yes I figured that, but didn't know what they were for. I have a directory /home/bobg/apps that I created to put stuff in. I just keep copying that into new installs. Convention is to use /usr/local/ then?
On 04/03/13 23:41, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 03/04/13 11:31, Ed Greshko wrote:
That is because you haven't put anything there.....
I have plenty of stuff in /usr/local which I've built manually since they were either home-grown or didn't have rpms to install. Put it there and it is available to all users.
Yes I figured that, but didn't know what they were for. I have a directory /home/bobg/apps that I created to put stuff in. I just keep copying that into new installs. Convention is to use /usr/local/ then?
Yes, if you want others using the system to have access. Also, if you build some apps from their tar files and they have a "configuration" script the process normally defaults to ....
configure make make install
And "make install" by default puts the needed things in /usr/local whatever....
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Reindl Harald
h.reindl@thelounge.netwrote:
Hi Bob,
Maybe this will help you to make a right decision:
9.13.5. Recommended Partitioning Scheme
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Installation_Guide/s2-dis...
That is very good information. I would like to add that if you allow remote access to your machine, it _might_ help security if you have /tmp and /var on separate partitions and mount them with nosuid and noexec.
On 02/04/13 14:39, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes. I may not get to try it until F-19 is released but would like to have an example on hand, might be inspired to try redoing an F-18 LVM installation.
Bob
Thanks to all for your responses. I think I can handle the next install without LVM. I've saved all this information for reference. I think I will start with a rework of one of my F-18 installs.
Bob
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 14:39 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 02/04/13 14:13, Joe Zeff wrote:
As a home user, I don't need to resize things dynamically, and LVM is the solution to a problem I don't have.
---- I'm not sure where this concept sprang from but I think you could easily say the same for many things on Linux until they become very useful. LVM is surely one of those things that seems to be overly complex and in the way until it solves a particular problem that you never anticipated having.
For example, Mr. Zeff botched up his /home by trying to fuse it with an older /boot partition and LVM could have fused them rather simply and painlessly.
I myself have moved partitions around on hard drives and have easily increased the size of logical volumes when adding new hard drives to an existing system.
So yeah, it seems that it's a solution to problem that you don't have but I think you are missing an important word... YET
Craig
On 04/04/2013 05:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
For example, Mr. Zeff botched up his /home by trying to fuse it with an older /boot partition and LVM could have fused them rather simply and painlessly.
I myself have moved partitions around on hard drives and have easily increased the size of logical volumes when adding new hard drives to an existing system.
Right. And if you use LVM you can do everything safely and on a live system, which is a lot better than these MSDOS-school tools based on "reboot into this ramdisk and keep your fingers crossed while I dangerously shuffle your data around".
:-)
On 04/02/2013 08:39 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 02/04/13 14:13, Joe Zeff wrote:
As a home user, I don't need to resize things dynamically, and LVM is the solution to a problem I don't have.
Over the last couple of years I've managed to install Fedora a few times minus LVM but I never seem to get the directory structure optimized, in fact far from it.
What I need is an example of a simple directory tree with the proper sizes. I may not get to try it until F-19 is released but would like to have an example on hand, might be inspired to try redoing an F-18 LVM installation.
Hmm, so you do not need to resize things. You always decide sizes at the beginning. But you never guess sizes correctly.
LVM exists to resize things and it looks to me you do have exactly that problem!
Why do you say "LVM is the solution to a problem I don't have"???
Best regards. :-)
-
Bob Goodwin -
Craig White -
davidschaak1＠mobilicity.blackberry.com -
Ed Greshko -
Grzegorz Witkowski -
Lester Petrie -
Mateusz Marzantowicz -
Reindl Harald -
Roberto Ragusa -
Tom Horsley -
Will Yonker