1 |
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:12:17 +0100, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: |
3 |
> > Then, create a volume group spawning [hs]da3 with name vg00 (you can |
4 |
> > choose the name freely) and create logical volumes inside: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I'd use a less generic name, otherwise you'll have problems if the |
7 |
> computer fails and you try to connect the disk to another computer that |
8 |
> has a vg00 volume group. I generally use a name related to the computer's |
9 |
> hostname, which avoids conflicts. |
10 |
|
11 |
I can already see that this thread is going to run, and run, and ... :) |
12 |
|
13 |
These days most people do not have a separate /boot partition as has already |
14 |
been mentioned. Depending on the size of your disk and your need for a swap |
15 |
partition you may want to have it at the beginning of a partition, or for |
16 |
larger disks in the middle. At the beginning you get faster read/write and |
17 |
in the middle you get faster access (I'm splitting hairs here, but it's fun |
18 |
anyway). Certain partitions (if you decide to go for multi-partition scheme) |
19 |
like /var/tmp, /tmp, /usr will benefit being at the beginning of the disk. |
20 |
Others (e.g. /root, /mnt, /sbin less so). |
21 |
|
22 |
Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for all |
23 |
ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, especially on |
24 |
a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change much in size, probably |
25 |
does not need it. On the other hand some servers (file, mail, news servers) |
26 |
are bound to continue to accumulate data and their fs will increase in time. |
27 |
I would argue that the former type of server can happily live in a few primary |
28 |
partitions + 1 extended with a number of logical partitions, if you are going |
29 |
for a multi-partitioned scheme, while the latter type of server will greatly |
30 |
benefit from LVM. Of course, if hard drive redundancy is necessary, then I |
31 |
can't see how you could live without LVM + RAID. |
32 |
|
33 |
With regards to your 47G /usr/portage partition I think that it is a waste of |
34 |
space. It won't harm you other than the fact that the 3.8G OS partition is |
35 |
in all likelihood too small. This is what I would do: tar the contents |
36 |
of /usr/portage elsewhere (even in the 3.8G partition - it should fit if you |
37 |
clear any cruft and, or use bzip). Delete the 47G partition and use gparted |
38 |
to enlarge the 3.8G partition to say, 8-10G. Then create a new partition say |
39 |
another 8-10G for /usr/portage. Then create anymore separate partitions you |
40 |
may need (for /home and what have you). mkfs as required, modify |
41 |
your /etc/fstab and move your data in your respective new partitions. If you |
42 |
think your fs is/are going to grow use LVM instead, otherwise primaries and |
43 |
if you need more than 4 then (extended + logical). |
44 |
|
45 |
Just my 2c's. |
46 |
-- |
47 |
Regards, |
48 |
Mick |