Redhat 9 Installation
- Thread starter bruce
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 8,509
Hello,
Partitioning varies system to system and admin to admin. In your case can go anywhere from simple:
18gig:
/boot - 100 meg
/tmp - 4 gig
/ - rest
36gig:
/home - all
But you can vary that quite substantially... if you want one for a backup drive... or adding more partions. .etc etc..
John
Partitioning varies system to system and admin to admin. In your case can go anywhere from simple:
18gig:
/boot - 100 meg
/tmp - 4 gig
/ - rest
36gig:
/home - all
But you can vary that quite substantially... if you want one for a backup drive... or adding more partions. .etc etc..
John
Hi,
Based on this reply, is it safe to gather that Direct Admin puts all data files (meaning websites and email stores) in the /home partition?
I am about to configure a box for use with DA (should be purchasing after next paycheck
). I am also curious as to recommended OS.
I do have one server side module that works best with Apache 1.3x so unless there are compelling DA related reasons to go with Fedora, I am thinking it is best to stick with say RH 7.3 (I think RH 9 uses Apache 2, but I could be wrong).
Thanks!
Dale
p.s. one other thing on this same topic. I have a machine with 3 hard drives in it. 1 would be the OS the other 2 (each 36 gb) are available for data.
As this machine is pretty beefy processor wise (it is a 1U rack with hot swap drives to sticking larger drives in it is not possible right now) so I plan on being able to put ultimately 200-300 sites on it, is there a way to put the mail store on one drive and the sites on the other - without causing any problems for future DA upgrades?
Based on this reply, is it safe to gather that Direct Admin puts all data files (meaning websites and email stores) in the /home partition?
I am about to configure a box for use with DA (should be purchasing after next paycheck
). I am also curious as to recommended OS.I do have one server side module that works best with Apache 1.3x so unless there are compelling DA related reasons to go with Fedora, I am thinking it is best to stick with say RH 7.3 (I think RH 9 uses Apache 2, but I could be wrong).
DirectAdmin Support said:
Thanks!
Dale
p.s. one other thing on this same topic. I have a machine with 3 hard drives in it. 1 would be the OS the other 2 (each 36 gb) are available for data.
As this machine is pretty beefy processor wise (it is a 1U rack with hot swap drives to sticking larger drives in it is not possible right now) so I plan on being able to put ultimately 200-300 sites on it, is there a way to put the mail store on one drive and the sites on the other - without causing any problems for future DA upgrades?
Last edited:
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
DA puts websites on the /home partition.TheBear said:
The mail is kept at /var/spool/virtual/<domainname>.
/home/<username>/mail only has links to directories at /var/spool/virtual/<domainname>.
I'm now highly recommending WBEL , which is an open-source compilation of RHEL.I am about to configure a box for use with DA (should be purchasing after next paycheck
It has all the advantages of RHEL and none of the cost.
The most important advantage is it's longevity; RHEL revisions are guaranteed good for five years of updates. Fedora is only guaranteeing one year of updates, and brings out to complete Core revisions a year.
As already answered, DA still uses 1.x versions of Apache no matter what the OS.
Why do you want to use separate partitions for the OS? A server installation shouldn't take more than one to two gigabytes, max. Unless you've got a compelling reason not to (such as needing the drive space), I'd create a RAID array.
Depending on what kind of site, that's not a heavy load at all.
Shouldn't be a problem; you can easily have the /var directory on another partition or drive; we always put /var on it's own partition, and we've never had a problem with that configuration.
Jeff
Rob T
Verified User
Partition Recommendations + CentOS Is also a good option
Here is the drive partitioning I would recommend given your hardware:
Drive 1:
/boot - 100mb
/ - 3000mb
/tmp - 2000mb
/var - 8000mb
/usr - 4000mb
swap - 1000mb
Drive 2:
/home - all availble space
I think this partitioning scheme will allow the most flexibility and security. Although many just partition everything on / and let usr, var, tmp, and others fight for the space, I prefer to define partitions. At the very least, create a separate /tmp partition so you can set it as noexec and nosuid to prevent possible system compromise.
As far as OS, I agree with Jeff (for the most part), but I would recommend a different RHEL Clone, CentOS. I have been doing CentOS installs of DA for a few weeks now and they are for the most part flawless. I prefer CentOS over WBEL since it seems to be the older of the two and seems to be the better supported of the two - it has many more options for mirrors etc. You can find more info on CentOS at http://www.centos.org
Here is the drive partitioning I would recommend given your hardware:
Drive 1:
/boot - 100mb
/ - 3000mb
/tmp - 2000mb
/var - 8000mb
/usr - 4000mb
swap - 1000mb
Drive 2:
/home - all availble space
I think this partitioning scheme will allow the most flexibility and security. Although many just partition everything on / and let usr, var, tmp, and others fight for the space, I prefer to define partitions. At the very least, create a separate /tmp partition so you can set it as noexec and nosuid to prevent possible system compromise.
As far as OS, I agree with Jeff (for the most part), but I would recommend a different RHEL Clone, CentOS. I have been doing CentOS installs of DA for a few weeks now and they are for the most part flawless. I prefer CentOS over WBEL since it seems to be the older of the two and seems to be the better supported of the two - it has many more options for mirrors etc. You can find more info on CentOS at http://www.centos.org
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
That's interesting, Rob.
Because I support WBEL for exactly the same reasons.
Does that mean I'm completely wrong, or that all these issues are in the eye of the beholder?
My biggest concern about CentOS is that it appears to me that they're really interested in creating their own OS, and that in the future they may drop support for a RHEL clone.
Am I seeing something that's not really there? Am I confused?
Thanks.
Jeff
Because I support WBEL for exactly the same reasons.
Does that mean I'm completely wrong, or that all these issues are in the eye of the beholder?
My biggest concern about CentOS is that it appears to me that they're really interested in creating their own OS, and that in the future they may drop support for a RHEL clone.
Am I seeing something that's not really there? Am I confused?
Thanks.
Jeff
Rob T
Verified User
No disrespect or insult intended...
Jeff,
I didn't mean any disrespect or anything like that at your decision to use WBEL - I have evaluated WBEL as well, and it is a fine distro. In researching it, it just seemed to be somewhat of a one man show. CentOS on the other hand seems to be more well established and had a larger community supporting it. Of course this is just my opinion, and is based only on my own observations and research.
Honestly, if WBEL would put out a DVD image rather than CD's, i'd probably give them another serious look, especially now that they are going to support x86_64 - I just hate having to change discs when i'm doing installs
- eventually i'll have to get serious and just start imaging discs, rather than doing installs on each machine I guess.
CaOS, the folks behind CentOS are working to create their own sort of distro (I haven't looked into this much), but from what I understand, CentOS is to remain a direct relative of RHEL. There are multiple projects that are supported by that community I believe.
My other reason for going with CentOS for the time being over WBEL is that support for a certain other control panel which shall remain nameless is better on CentOS than WBEL currently. Seems strange, but it is the case I'm told.
Jeff,
I didn't mean any disrespect or anything like that at your decision to use WBEL - I have evaluated WBEL as well, and it is a fine distro. In researching it, it just seemed to be somewhat of a one man show. CentOS on the other hand seems to be more well established and had a larger community supporting it. Of course this is just my opinion, and is based only on my own observations and research.
Honestly, if WBEL would put out a DVD image rather than CD's, i'd probably give them another serious look, especially now that they are going to support x86_64 - I just hate having to change discs when i'm doing installs
- eventually i'll have to get serious and just start imaging discs, rather than doing installs on each machine I guess.CaOS, the folks behind CentOS are working to create their own sort of distro (I haven't looked into this much), but from what I understand, CentOS is to remain a direct relative of RHEL. There are multiple projects that are supported by that community I believe.
My other reason for going with CentOS for the time being over WBEL is that support for a certain other control panel which shall remain nameless is better on CentOS than WBEL currently. Seems strange, but it is the case I'm told.
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
No disrespect taken, or meant, either.
I think it's great that we're all not alike
.
But a few points do come to mind...
1) I decided exactly the opposite, when comparing CentOS against WBEL. Where do you get, for example, that it's a one-man show? There are now a lot of people working in the community.
2) WBEL _is_ RHEL compiled from the Open Source sourcecode. If CentOS is as well (and they say it is, on their website) then support for one should only complement support for the other.
If installing on DVD and not having to change CDs twice during an install is more important than the difference in price between a CD drive and a DVD drive, then I guess it is. It isn't to me, since once the server is in the data center it's unlikely we'll ever use the drive again except in an emergency.
(In emergencies we use knoppix boot CDs as we have a KB/Mouse/Monitor sytem in the data center.)
Jeff
I think it's great that we're all not alike
.But a few points do come to mind...
1) I decided exactly the opposite, when comparing CentOS against WBEL. Where do you get, for example, that it's a one-man show? There are now a lot of people working in the community.
2) WBEL _is_ RHEL compiled from the Open Source sourcecode. If CentOS is as well (and they say it is, on their website) then support for one should only complement support for the other.
If installing on DVD and not having to change CDs twice during an install is more important than the difference in price between a CD drive and a DVD drive, then I guess it is. It isn't to me, since once the server is in the data center it's unlikely we'll ever use the drive again except in an emergency.
(In emergencies we use knoppix boot CDs as we have a KB/Mouse/Monitor sytem in the data center.)
Jeff
Rob T
Verified User
My comments about the DVD image were half in jest - although i do actually prefer to install from dvd images anyway in most cases. Most of my boxes don't get their own DVD-ROM drive anyway - we just keep a couple of USB DVD-ROM drives around, and use those for installs and to boot from knoppix cd when we need to do something on the box. Saves me $40 per box, and i haven't run into many problems with it yet.
I was actually kind of hoping that the RHEL-clone projects would sort-of merge at some point, just so that the community supporting the releases etc. would be more widespread. I still think that might end up happening at some point, actually.
Perhaps i'll email the guys over at WBEL and offer to donate a DVD burner to their cause if they will start releasing DVD images - that way i'd be more inclined to use their release 
I was actually kind of hoping that the RHEL-clone projects would sort-of merge at some point, just so that the community supporting the releases etc. would be more widespread. I still think that might end up happening at some point, actually.
Perhaps i'll email the guys over at WBEL and offer to donate a DVD burner to their cause if they will start releasing DVD images
- that way i'd be more inclined to use their release
Last edited:
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
How about offering to to create the DVD-iso for them . I bet they'd take you up on that offer.
Although I think a lot of people would still rather use CDROMs for server installs.
Jeff
. I bet they'd take you up on that offer.Although I think a lot of people would still rather use CDROMs for server installs.
Jeff