Best practice partition & LVM for KVM

scottalanmiller

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@scottalanmiller said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@scottalanmiller said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@scottalanmiller said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

I seen an FC22 repo, but that's using oVirt 3.6 and is way old.

FC24 repos for 4.1

Missed that... would you use FC24 to control your datacenter, and for how long? I'd rather use something I know will stay supported or at least stay current. It seems it only is with CentOS/RHEL. So I'd use CentOS for the oVirt Engine and Fedora for each oVirt Node.

But that's not what the OP is doing. It looks like he's going to do a self-hosted install of oVirt Engine, if that's the case, I'd go with the most recent most stably supported way, and that happens to be CentOS or RHEL.

no, but it's clearly been on Fedora from time to time. I wonder why they are doing it like that.

No idea... you know I'd much rather use Fedora. But having to start with FC24 reminds me of technical debt in a way.

It is, but having oVirt only on CentOS 7 feels like that, too

Not 7.0... CentOS 7 or 7.x

Patched, but still old. Not something I want as my hypervisor base.

Obsolesce

Patched and most recent CentOS, plus most recent stable oVirt I think is better than running old Fedora plus old oVirt.

scottalanmiller

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

Patched and most recent CentOS, plus most recent stable oVirt I think is better than running old Fedora plus old oVirt.

Right, better, but I don't count it as good. I'm saying that CentOS doesn't offer something I'm happy with for KVM.

Obsolesce

@scottalanmiller said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

Patched and most recent CentOS, plus most recent stable oVirt I think is better than running old Fedora plus old oVirt.

Right, better, but I don't count it as good. I'm saying that CentOS doesn't offer something I'm happy with for KVM.

Then don't run KVM on it. You can set up some CentOS VM for only oVirt Engine. Then you can set up your Fedora KVM hypervisors with oVirt Node to do the hypervising.

scottalanmiller

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@scottalanmiller said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

Patched and most recent CentOS, plus most recent stable oVirt I think is better than running old Fedora plus old oVirt.

Right, better, but I don't count it as good. I'm saying that CentOS doesn't offer something I'm happy with for KVM.

Then don't run KVM on it. You can set up some CentOS VM for only oVirt Engine. Then you can set up your Fedora KVM hypervisors with oVirt Node to do the hypervising.

OIC, it can be a pure oVirt VM, KVM still on Fedora?

Obsolesce

Yes.. I just thought of something...

scottalanmiller

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

Yes.. I just thought of something...

What's taht?

Obsolesce

I'd have to verify, but maybe one could set up a Fedora hypervisor, and run a CentOS VM on it for oVirt Engine... and oVirt Node on the Fedora host?

Obsolesce

Technically that's not self-hosted.... so I think that would work.

I mean as far as what they consider self-hosted.

Obsolesce

I just don't know how production worthy that is without testing it first... I guess if you make the oVirt Engine VM HA, that could work. (or at least replicated)

kuyaz

@tim_g said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@kuyaz said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

LVG : vg_ssd_critical_vm
/vm (ssd)
LVG : vg_sata_non_critical_vm
/boot 2GB
/bootBIOS 1GB
/root (ALL remaining space)
/swap (32GB)

I'd use XFS. Don't use EXT4. You're correct with using LVM.

I'd go like this:

LVG : vg_ssd_critical_vm
/DATAssd

LVG : vg_sata_non_critical_vm
/DATAhdd (xfs)
/boot 2GB (xfs)
/bootBIOS 1GB
/root 50GB (xfs)
/swap 32GB (swap)
/home whatever (xfs)

As @travisdh1 said, you'll need space for snapshots of the LVMs, but don't do it for the VMs. Use VM snapshots for those instead.

You're VMs should be RAW (.img) for better performance.

So i put the vmware img in the dataHDD?
Please note this is for production server running sql and web apps (it it matters).

What is the disadvantage if i dont separate the datahdd and home from root? Mine is all lumped in root.

Will redo since im not too far off.

kuyaz

@tim_g another one is because Dell always issue RHEL package which normally is compatible with centos. Never try it with fedora, so not sure it will run well. ie. Omsa dell.

Related to KVM, what fedora can offer that CentOs cant?

black3dynamite

For a KVM server or Linux VMs, wouldn’t it be better to use swapfile instead of a swap partition?

scottalanmiller

@black3dynamite said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

For a KVM server or Linux VMs, wouldn’t it be better to use swapfile instead of a swap partition?

That’s the general consensus today.

scottalanmiller

@kuyaz said in Best practice partition & LVM for KVM:

@tim_g another one is because Dell always issue RHEL package which normally is compatible with centos. Never try it with fedora, so not sure it will run well. ie. Omsa dell.

Related to KVM, what fedora can offer that CentOs cant?

Fedora is dramatically more modern. Years newer than a CentOS