CentOS - Aug 2007 - hw raid 10 with 4 disc, recomended partitiontable

I am familiar with centos and this forum, and have some rhel / centos 
questions. Therefore I'm asking the question here

I am about to install rhel4.5 on a hp dl380 with 4 disc's. The standard 
rhel installation installers all in one partition?
Will there be any advantage of splitting the file system up?
What would be a good recommended partition table for a server running 
scripts handling big amount of transactions?

Normally i would do something like this, but i need to ask the question 
since I haven't installed on a production machine before
/boot
/opt
/usr
/var
/tmp
/home

An other thing, I haven't installed rhel before, only centos and notice 
a difference in that yum is not a part of rhel, and later figuring out 
that no updates are possible since I installed without the graphics's.
Are there other significant differences between CentOS and RHEL?

On 8/13/07, kai <centos at sandsengen.com> wrote:
> I am familiar with centos and this forum, and have some rhel / centos
> questions. Therefore I'm asking the question here
>
> I am about to install rhel4.5 on a hp dl380 with 4 disc's. The standard
> rhel installation installers all in one partition?
> Will there be any advantage of splitting the file system up?
> What would be a good recommended partition table for a server running
> scripts handling big amount of transactions?
Depends on what type of server. Webserver, mail server, sql server
etc. What's the primary fuction?
>
> Normally i would do something like this, but i need to ask the question
> since I haven't installed on a production machine before
> /boot
> /opt
> /usr
> /var
> /tmp
> /home
You don't need to split /opt and /usr out usually unless you plan to
customize/use them heavily.

/tmp is good to split out for noexec mounts. I do this as another
layer to security for my webservers. It'll by no means stop attacks,
but every little bit helps, and I like to make my servers as
uninviting to maladjusted folks as I can.
> An other thing, I haven't installed rhel before, only centos and notice
> a difference in that yum is not a part of rhel, and later figuring out
> that no updates are possible since I installed without the graphics's.
> Are there other significant differences between CentOS and RHEL?
CentOS comes with yum, because it's better than up2date, and the
backend to up2date is not GPL'd. In RHEL5 redhat has done away with
up2date themselves, and use yum as the prefered mechanism.

As to the second part of your statement, I'm a little confused as to
why you think this. Other than some different artwork and the
inclusion of yum in centos < 5, it's nearly identical to RHEL (this is
one of the specific goals of the distro), and updates are very much
possible without a gui.  What sort of trouble are you having with
updates?



-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

kai wrote:
> I am familiar with centos and this forum, and have some rhel / centos 
> questions. Therefore I'm asking the question here
> 
> I am about to install rhel4.5 on a hp dl380 with 4 disc's. The standard
> rhel installation installers all in one partition?
> Will there be any advantage of splitting the file system up?
> What would be a good recommended partition table for a server running 
> scripts handling big amount of transactions?
> 
> Normally i would do something like this, but i need to ask the question 
> since I haven't installed on a production machine before
> /boot
> /opt
> /usr
> /var
> /tmp
> /home
> 

I assume this would be something like /boot on its own partition and 
everything else on one partition and stuffed into a LVM?

I put swap and all filesystems on a LVM except for /boot.