Linux - Server This forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context. |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
|
03-12-2011, 12:30 AM
|
#1
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: /usa/pa/manheim
Distribution: Debian 5 + Xfce
Posts: 64
Rep:
|
3 HD CentOS Partition Scheme?
I am trying to set up my Frankenserver (512M RAM), running CentOS, for web, BB & mail (hopefully web-based, ie: Hotmail). As availability would have it, its 3 HDs are odd sizes: 27.3G, 20.0G & 13.6G. So, before my brain explodes from conflicting/vague guides, here's what I'd planned for my Debian install when I had 256M RAM:
Code:
hda (27.3G)
/boot 128M
/swap 1G
/home 7.3G?
LVM1log 512M
LVM2log 512M
LVM1m1 4.3G /usr
LVM2m1 13.6G /var
hdb (20.0G)
/ 354M (why'd I chose that amount?)
/tmp 512M
/usr/local 5.1G
LVM1m2 4.3G
hdb (13.6G)
LVM2m2 13.6G
However, restarting w/ CentOS, I've read this advice for a similar RHEL setup. There's also this general FAQ and this one about servers, the latter going WHOOSH! :s
I would also like to encrypt my data/partitions (sure, why not complicate matters) so that one day if my server's cracked, you won't here me proclaim "Whoops! Sorry your sensitive data fell into the wrong hands!" Sound familiar? (ie: the news) However, I'm going to be the only local user(?), and it's just getting stuffed in my closet on a UPS & managed "remotely".
|
|
|
03-12-2011, 02:51 AM
|
#2
|
Moderator
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,417
|
it sounds to me like you're over complicating things here. Do you need to use these drives? If you're only doing a little bit of hosting then why not just pick the largest drive? Personally probably just use a default layout in the installer and move on with my life. Encryption seems like overkill, but you can choose that during the install phase anyway. If you want more space i'd probably look to use LVM and just have a /data partition using up remaining space, or maybe /home instead.
|
|
|
03-12-2011, 03:21 AM
|
#3
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: /usa/pa/manheim
Distribution: Debian 5 + Xfce
Posts: 64
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid_kewpie
it sounds to me like you're over complicating things here. Do you need to use these drives? If you're only doing a little bit of hosting then why not just pick the largest drive? Personally probably just use a default layout in the installer and move on with my life. Encryption seems like overkill, but you can choose that during the install phase anyway. If you want more space i'd probably look to use LVM and just have a /data partition using up remaining space, or maybe /home instead.
|
Do commercial servers run on only one drive? My Frankenserver is my "test box" and I am the "student". How complicated and frustrating can I make it before either my brain, or it, explodes? LOL! My goal is to learn. My 2 LVMs are for redundancy and to make the most room I can for my two largest/critical partitions. Hence /var going on a mirrored 13.6G partition. If I was lucky enough to have two identical drives, I be best to go software RAID, no? However, life is never that simple....
Likewise, in terms of encryption, I doubt I'll have any "sensitive" data on my box for now. Someday, though, my future servers might, and you best believe that I won't let my clients down like so many other foolish data companies.
Last edited by DJRcomputing; 03-12-2011 at 03:38 AM.
|
|
|
03-12-2011, 05:56 AM
|
#4
|
Moderator
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 29,415
|
While it is not easy to project performance in general you can say that adding RAM, separating disks between controllers and separating partitions that see intensive writes from those that are read from (like http://shearer.org/Linux_Server_Partitioning points out) will always benefit performance. So while I partially concur with the "over-complicating things" part I don't agree with it to the point where you should "just use a default layout" if that layout is the / + /home + swap layout targeted at new Linux users. If you say that purpose dictates performance and you need to concurrently write say mail spools, logs and databases then you know you can assign those partitions to different physical disks. The LM20A011 and WD273BA being the (relatively) quickest I'd say: WD136AA: /boot, / (500M to 1G), /usr, swap (you don't want to use swap, add RAM); LM20A011: /var, /home. Nota bene: there's nothing keeping you from doing something like: WD273BA: /var/spool (or database dir) and then use 'mount --bind' in fstab. Also note LVM means scalability, not performance and that goes for disk encryption as well. Adding file (not disk) encryption later on can be done with for instance FUSE and EncFS (personal mount points) combined with some PAM magic.
* Do search LQ for related threads as disk partitioning usually is good for thorough discussions.
|
|
1 members found this post helpful.
|
03-12-2011, 06:32 AM
|
#5
|
Moderator
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,417
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRcomputing
Do commercial servers run on only one drive?
|
Yes. Plenty do. Lots use raid setups and the likes, lots do not. There are lots of reasons and motivations for choosing these layouts and not merely "because it's a server". I'll make a concession though and say I've been up to my eyes in disposable VM servers, so that's not the same sort of methodologies at stake.
LVM Mirrors are fine, but software raid can be applied to partitions as well as entire drives, so mismatched drive sizes doesn't rule out raid mirrors at all.
Last edited by acid_kewpie; 03-12-2011 at 06:35 AM.
|
|
1 members found this post helpful.
|
03-12-2011, 12:15 PM
|
#6
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Distribution: Debian, RHEL
Posts: 269
Rep:
|
Just something to keep in mind when going down the whole encryption route, doing an encrypted partition does nothing for data security if the server is compromised. In other words if an attacker is able to gain remote access to your system and login via SSH they will then have access to the encrypted drive since the server is online. At least this is the case with some of the disk encryption mechanisms. Most of the disk encryption options are intended to protect in the event of someone physically taking a drive, in which case mounting in any other system would leave it unreadable without the encryption key.
|
|
1 members found this post helpful.
|
03-12-2011, 07:51 PM
|
#7
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: /usa/pa/manheim
Distribution: Debian 5 + Xfce
Posts: 64
Original Poster
Rep:
|
First, you mods rock. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by unSpawn
[recommendations based on software specs]
Also note LVM means scalability, not performance.
* Do search LQ for related threads as disk partitioning usually is good for thorough discussions.
|
I'm impressed that you paid attention to my HD's specs, which is why, besides "pride", they're listed (by model) in my signature. In terms of swap vs 512 MB is my max. I'm actually looking for redundancy. However, regarding scalability, to what extent can partitions be resized/moved as needed, like why I use Acronis Disk Director in XP? I'm new to *NIX partition/directory structure, so...? Unfortunately, I haven't yet read the 52 page Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.
One other question, that LinuxF***** post mentions 5 GB for / due to RHEL's methodology? Is that true, and does it therefore apply to CentOS? Otherwise "related threads" are what make my head hurt. There are SO many variables & recommendations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid_kewpie
LVM Mirrors are fine, but software raid can be applied to partitions as well as entire drives, so mismatched drive sizes doesn't rule out raid mirrors at all.
|
See, THAT I did not know. For practical redundancy, would RAID be simpler if LVM scalability doesn't benefit me? Maybe I'll run LVM on top of RAID. LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComputerErik
Just something to keep in mind when going down the whole encryption route, doing an encrypted partition does nothing for data security if the server is compromised.
|
That's what I suspected, and was going to be my next question. Thanks for answering in advance.
|
|
|
03-13-2011, 05:19 AM
|
#8
|
Moderator
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,417
|
Nothing wrong in my book running conventional lvm on top of software raid0. You would just have a raid0+1 like setup, but with more flexibility on the '1' side.
|
|
|
03-14-2011, 10:20 AM
|
#9
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: /usa/pa/manheim
Distribution: Debian 5 + Xfce
Posts: 64
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by unSpawn
* Do search LQ for related threads as disk partitioning usually is good for thorough discussions.
|
Do I get bonus points for solving my own question, or smacked for not looking for (& finding) the answer myself before asking in the first place?
I prefer warm & fuzzy feelings & pride.
Though my HD setup is mismatched, this helps a lot:
Recommended Partitions for CentOS 5 with 200GB drive?
However, I appreciate everyone's contributions thus far. Thanks!
The only question remaining, really, is the one I asked earlier regarding a 1GB / directory vs. 5GB, as I still haven't found/received/figured out the correct answer.
Last edited by DJRcomputing; 03-14-2011 at 11:41 AM.
|
|
|
03-16-2011, 04:31 AM
|
#10
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: /usa/pa/manheim
Distribution: Debian 5 + Xfce
Posts: 64
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRcomputing
The only question remaining, really, is the one I asked earlier regarding a 1GB / directory vs. 5GB, as I still haven't found/received/figured out the correct answer.
|
Don't mind me... *whistles innocently* FINALLY found it, of all places, in Section 4.18.4 of the documentation: Recommended Partitioning Scheme. I swear I looked previously, but must've missed it:
Quote:
A root partition (3.0 GB - 5.0 GB) — this is where "/" (the root directory) is located. In this setup, all files (except those stored in /boot/efi) are on the root partition.
A 3.0 GB partition allows you to install a minimal installation, while a 5.0 GB root partition lets you perform a full installation, choosing all package groups.
|
So yeah, the previous advice for a similar setup is right. CentOS/RHEL must dump most of their install in root. *shrug*
PS - I get a kick out of how CentOS, for all their formal RHEL re-banding, still utilises stock RHEL(-branded) documentation. LOL!
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|