It is hard to give a definite answer depending on what you want and what you need. For instance:
By default RL9 wants to use LVM. Do you feel you want or need it?
It makes future operations, like increasing mountpoint sizes etc. easier to perform even without rebooting a machine, and is therefore pretty much a must on servers… but if you are just installing Linux on your laptop or home PC, the benefits of LVM might not be important at all. They might be though, if you intend to e.g. add new hard drives to your Linux setup later on, in order to increase the existing filesystems.
Then again I am unsure if here are any real downsides to using LVM either, even if you don’t really need it. Maybe a bit lower performance on disk operations and/or “wasting” a bit of hard drive space on it? Just guessing here, I am not fully sure if it has those downsides either or they are very minimal anyway, but at least in theory it is an additional layer between you and the hardware.
RL9 sets up the root filesystem and the /home directory separately, and also a separate swap volume. Is this what you want?
I just installed RL9 on my laptop a couple of days ago, dual-boot with Windows 11 Pro, and since I felt I don’t really need LVM and I have quite “little” space for Linux (so I want to use the free space as efficiently as possible), I finally ended up with something like this (this is from my memory, I can’t check it right now):
/boot xfs 1GB
/boot/efi 1GB (I don’t recall what the filesystem is, vfat? Also 1GB seems to be abundant, apparently this could be much smaller.)
/ xfs the rest of the free space
I tend to choose xfs over ext4 on RHEL-family Linuxes, as it is the default option. On Ubuntus etc. I use ext4 (or in Linux Mint I might even go for a next-gen filesystem like btrfs).
In the past I tried to google if there are any real benefits or downsides between ext4 vs. xfs, but the differences didn’t seem that significant, especially for non-server use. Maybe the biggest downside with xfs is that used tools/commands can be different, but since xfs is still the default choice for RHEL Linuxes, I don’t think that is a real issue either.
I didn’t set up a separate partition or logical volume for swap, like RHEL/Rocky likes to do by default. I prefer doing it the “Ubuntu way” with a swapfile, easier to change its size or move it that way. For my laptop, I created a 4GB swapfile to the root filesystem manually afterwards.
If you refer to jlehtone’s message to the official recommendations, at least I found that enlightening, even if it doesn’t give a direct answer to “what kind of partitioning do you need?”, which can’t be answered directly anyway I guess.
Quite a different task if you are setting up some big high-usage database server, or just installing Linux on a laptop for basic desktop use.
Documentation helps you understand. It’s there to specifically help you do something, the options chosen may differ compared to the steps outlined in the documentation depending on your personal preference.
Partitioning is always one of those things that’s specific to what you are going to do with your system. Are the defaults enough? Not always. But depends what you are doing.
Cloud images be it Rocky or whatever, have a single / partition and that’s pretty much it. They don’t segregate /home or even /usr or /var. Again with servers or VM’s, do you segregate futher by having /, /usr, /var, /tmp, /opt or whatever - again depends on what you are doing.
There’s no one answer fits all unfortunately in this situation. Documentation helps people understand so they can make an informed decision themselves about what route to take, be it partitions or whatever. It also saves people having to post and repeat the same answer to a question that has been most likely asked multiple times. Assuming of course people have actually searched the forum before posting. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen questions on other forums repeated hundreds of times, when a simple search could have given the answer, and saved me or others who want to help by having to do the search and provide that answer or repeat ourselves. Not that this forum post is one of them, just saying and giving as an example.
Documentation is always valid to post in a forum, when relevant to the question that is being asked.
Anyone its own opinion. It’s not mine. At the opposite I think that a simple link to the appropriate documentation is more effective and complete. And then, if there is one or more ponts to clarify, it has to be done in the forum.