On 9/23/08, mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx?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@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
