On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Thomas Dukes tdukes@sc.rr.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of ken Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:36 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vitualization and Partitioning
On 09/11/2011 11:10 PM Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
Hi,
When I do the install, do I or should I setup a separate partition for guest
That would be better from a performance point of view
OS's? From the redhat docs, it looks like the guest OS's reside at /var/lib/libvirt/images/.
This should be using files as disk files, which I did and
found it to
be a problem when there is heavy I/O.
I like LVM (for the reasons you cite). Would you (anyone?) say it's best to have one LV per guest or one LV for all guests?
tnx.
I'm new to this but I would think you would want a separate LV for each guest. Seems I read somewhere, that you need one core per guest as well. That's why I'm opting for the Xeon processor rather than the iCore(x). Four cores v. two. More options.
Can't believe this thread hasn't stirred more response. Maybe we all are in the learning phase.
Eddie
We use LVM on all our virtual hosting servers since it's much easier to manage.
You basically setup a PV volume spanning the whole drive(s), and then a 10GB (or larger if you need to) LVM volume for /root, 10GB for /var, 2GB for /tmp & 5GB for /home.
Then for any VM's just add LVM volumes as needed, for example:
/dev/Volume001/vm1_root - 10GB /dev/Volume001/vm1_swap - 1GB
Another tip: Don't use the default LVM volume naming scheme, but instead name the LVM volumes according to your server name, i.e. server01 & server02. This way if server01's HDD crashes and you need to mount it on server002 for recovery purposes, you won't have conflicting LVM volumes