CentOS - Jun 2015 - newbie question on installation over existing Linux

On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote:
> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition
> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
> partition for what ever.

that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting 
/usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that 
nowdays.   I don't like putting /var in its own partition either as its 
all too intertwined with root.   the problem with lots of little 
partitions is your freespace gets fragmented.

/home in a dedicated partition, sure. 
/var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 06/09/2015 12:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote:
>> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition
>> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
>> partition for what ever.
> 
> 
> that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting
> /usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that
> nowdays.   I don't like putting /var in its own partition either as its
> all too intertwined with root.   the problem with lots of little
> partitions is your freespace gets fragmented.
> 
> /home in a dedicated partition, sure.
> /var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...
The real issue is that you cannot put /usr on a dedicated partition
anymore as of CentOS 7.  This is because /bin, /lib and /lib64 are
symbolic linked in the /usr equivalents now.  The (previous) purposes of
having a separate /bin and /lib was so that programs and libs required
at boot time could be run before the rest of the fs was mounted up if
/usr were on a separate partition.  Now they've been consolidated and
symlinked so if you put /usr on a separate partition then the system
won't be able to access critical apps during boot.

You can thank Fedora for making that rather pointless change and
breaking that capability.


Peter

On 06/08/2015 07:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote:
>> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition
>> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
>> partition for what ever.
> 
> that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting 
> /usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that 
> nowdays.   I don't like putting /var in its own partition either as its
> all too intertwined with root.   the problem with lots of little 
> partitions is your freespace gets fragmented.
i agree with you 100%.

op inferred that i told him to put everything in 1 partition, which
i did not. so i was just telling him if he wanted to be 'old school'
he could partition what every his heart desired. ;-)

for my 'base' os partitioning is /boot, swap, /, /home.

all additional installs are /, swap, /home. after install if/and
install part 2 boot, i restart to base, i log in as root, copy
grub.conf into /grub of base /boot as grub.conf-newosname. then i
cut/paste lines into my main grub.conf. make notations in 'title'
line. next i copy base /root files that customize user root so i
have same 'root' operation across all installs. the i reboot to
new install and set it up.
> /home in a dedicated partition, sure.
only way i have done it from many years back.
> /var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...
if/when i set up a server.


-- 

peace out.

If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
 ...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!


in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

CentOS GNU/Linux 6.6

tc,hago.

g
.

On 06/09/2015 01:31 PM, g wrote:
>> /home in a dedicated partition, sure.
> 
> only way i have done it from many years back.
> 
>> /var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...
> 
> if/when i set up a server.
Servers are better off without a separate partition for /home.  Unlike
desktop installs which contain pretty much all of the user data under
/home in a server install there isn't very much "user" data at all
and
most of the actual data is contained under /var somewhere.

That said, if you plan on having multiple users who will store some data
in their individual /home directories then /home might be in order for a
server, it all depends on your individual needs, it's just that on a
server I don't automatically create a massive /home like I would on a
desktop.


Peter

On 06/08/2015 08:29 PM, Peter wrote:
<<>>
> The real issue is that you cannot put /usr on a dedicated partition
> anymore as of CentOS 7.  This is because /bin, /lib and /lib64 are
> symbolic linked in the /usr equivalents now.  The (previous) purposes of
> having a separate /bin and /lib was so that programs and libs required
> at boot time could be run before the rest of the fs was mounted up if
> /usr were on a separate partition.  Now they've been consolidated and
> symlinked so if you put /usr on a separate partition then the system
> won't be able to access critical apps during boot.
_but_, you can/could have a minimal /usr with required files for boot.
then after the mounting, usr partition lays in.
> You can thank Fedora for making that rather pointless change and
> breaking that capability.
there are a lot of 'thank yous' for fedora project. 1 of which made
3 of my drive lvm when they were ext4. :-\


-- 

peace out.

If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
 ...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!


in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

CentOS GNU/Linux 6.6

tc,hago.

g
.

On 6/8/2015 6:29 PM, Peter wrote:
> You can thank Fedora for making that rather pointless change and
> breaking that capability.
that 'capability' was a holdover of the 1980s when disks were measured 
in megabytes, and memory in kilobytes, so large file systems were 
impractical.



-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 06/08/2015 06:29 PM, Peter wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 12:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote:
>>> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /,
partition
>>> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
>>> partition for what ever.
>>
>>
>> that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting
>> /usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that
>> nowdays.   I don't like putting /var in its own partition either as
its
>> all too intertwined with root.   the problem with lots of little
>> partitions is your freespace gets fragmented.
>>
>> /home in a dedicated partition, sure.
>> /var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...
> 
> The real issue is that you cannot put /usr on a dedicated partition
> anymore as of CentOS 7.  This is because /bin, /lib and /lib64 are
> symbolic linked in the /usr equivalents now.  The (previous) purposes of
> having a separate /bin and /lib was so that programs and libs required
> at boot time could be run before the rest of the fs was mounted up if
> /usr were on a separate partition.  Now they've been consolidated and
> symlinked so if you put /usr on a separate partition then the system
> won't be able to access critical apps during boot.
> 
> You can thank Fedora for making that rather pointless change and
> breaking that capability.
> 
> 
> Peter
Just curious what happens in this case. Do the apps wait and/or retry
until /usr is mounted or does the boot fail?

-- 
--------------------------------------------
MzK

"We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
 somewhere at any given time,
 the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
                          -- David Letterman