F13 a4 x86_64 netinst - default partitioning, default set of software

Karel Volný kvolny at redhat.com
Mon Mar 1 14:22:10 UTC 2010


hi,

this weekend I've tried to install F13 for a virtualised server

I had some troubles to figure out how to use public IP address 
from within the virtual machine, but after that the installation 
went smoothly, and the result seems ok - well, mostly :)

two things:

1) on the software selection screen, I have unchecked desktop and 
selected server ... but still I got the full GNOME desktop 
installed (not to mention all the i18n/IM and such stuff) - not 
exactly what you'd use for serving web pages and VCS repositories 
:-)
(well, I didn't do manual package selection, just the generic 
groups)

2) the default partitioning scheme seems a bit strange to me ...

I've used 100 GiB virtual disk, which got divided into two 
partitions - 499 MB /boot and the rest LVM

the LVM partition was divided into 2 GB swap, 50 GB root and 49 
GB /home

I can't see what scenario does this division fit - for a desktop 
user, I bet a lot of space in /home would be preferred to store 
all the multimedia and such stuff

- for a server, a lot of space in /var (i.e. under root) would be 
preferred to store all the stuff for www (/var/www), lots of 
intrusion attempts, err I mean access, logs (/var/log) etc.

but the installer can hardly tell what is preferred ... why to 
choose a "solution" that is only half-good = half-bad in both 
cases?

... I bet there must have been a lot of discussion about going 
with just root versus separate /home, and how much space to 
allocate, could someone point me to some summary why such a 
solution was chosen?

this is no big deal, as it is easy to make custom partition 
scheme, I'm just curious - the default simply does seem a good 
compromise to me, it does not fit the most common scenario (I bet 
most people use Fedora on desktop?), why not to make it better, 
is there a reason why to do it this way that stays hidden for me?

K.

p.s. qemu complains about missing smp support in kvm, can anyone 
point me to a solution? - so far I've found just some old 
bugreports for it ...

-- 
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp kavol at jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100301/423c180c/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the test mailing list