Hi,
I have downloaded Rocky 9 from Download Rocky | Rocky Linux. I need guidance regarding partition scheme for Rocky Linux 9.1.
I have a separate data disk around 6.5 TB. What filesystem i should use? Is it xfs or ext4 for formatting the data disk OS disk /boot/efi , / , /home etc…?
/boot filesystem type and size
/ filesystem type and size
/home filesystem type and size
/datadisk filesystem type
Please guide.
Best Regards,
Kaushal
The installer has two options: automatic and customize.
In the customize you can still ask the tool to create what automatic would, but then adjust.
Red Hat has their opinion: Appendix B. Partitioning reference Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Red Hat Customer Portal
It is hard to give a definite answer depending on what you want and what you need. For instance:
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.
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
Some explanations:
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.
I don’t understand the interest of copying the content of the documentation in a forum which is made for finding solutions for specific issues.
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.
And by the way here is an interesting link:
Out of curiosity, who did copy content to here? I and you did post links. Yes, that Eric’s text is useful.
Red Hat notes that mounting /usr or /var is tricky, because some of their content is needed early in boot.
Most /var/XXX ought to be safe to mount “late” though.
Such tidbits lurk in the documentation. Do we notice then while browsing the manual? Maybe.
Are they relevant to this case? Probably not.