| Matthew Rosewarne on 14 Jun 2007 04:49:57 -0000 |
|
On Thursday 14 June 2007, James Barrett wrote: > Perhaps add /tmp as well. No, /tmp is usually handled by a tmpfs in a modern distro. > > Should swap be in lvm? > > It can be done. If you wanted to put in more RAM, you might want to > increase your swap size as well, so keeping it in the LVM might be a > good choice in that scenario. The thing is, your LVM will be on top of a > RAID1 array... Why would you want or need redundancy for swap? It would > just waste a lot of space. > > A better option might be to span the swap partitions equally over > multiple disks in non-lvm partitions, completely outside of the RAID > array. This will save a considerable amount of disk space. Since if a disk fails, the swap on it could become corrupt, which would be a Bad Thing(TM), it is a good idea to put the swap with everything else on the RAID 1. Also, no system should dedicate a considerable amount of space to swap, as you shouldn't be relying on swap during normal use. > > Then I would make two raid 1 partitions - md0 for /boot an md1 for lvm. > > > > Is this a proper? good? method. > > Why not just have md0 be / (including /boot), and then have md1 be lvm? Then you need to have / not on the LVM, which would be much harder to deal with than having a /boot partition. Doug's original idea is probably the best approach. > ext3 is good for small partitions, not good for bigger ones. Definitely > ext3 for /root; if you have a /tmp partition (which is not a bad idea) > then I would use ext2 as it does not need journaling. For everything > else, like Matthew said, XFS or JFS is a better solution. Well, ext3 would be good for a /boot partition. There is absolutely no reason _whatsoever_ to use ext2 on a hard disk partition (EVER!). Journaling is a _good_ thing; the alternative would be a mandatory fsck at regular intervals and the greatly increased risk of data loss. Again, /tmp is usually handled by a tmpfs, and does not need its own partition. > > In the above scenerio, assuming it is correct, I assume that the only > > formatting to fs that is done is when lvm is created? LVM doesn't format anything on its own. You make logical volumes, which must be formatted just like regular partitions. If you're using the Debian installer (or some other installer, most can do this), it should be quite straightforward. Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|