Kenneth Holter wrote: > 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. >> > What's the reason for not using LVM for / and /boot? You've got to have the lvm software loaded and running to see and mount it. For booting, you *really* want KISS engineering - it's complicated enough without throwing more risk into the mix. mark -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
