this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
1745 points (97.8% liked)

linuxmemes

21009 readers
577 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Ext4 is the safe bet for a beginner. The real question is with or without LVM. Generally I would say with but that abstraction layer between the filesystem and disk can really be confusing if you've never dealt with it before. A total beginner should probably go ext4 without LVM and then play around in a VM with the various options to become informed enough to do something less vanilla.

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    and then play around in a VM with the various options to become informed enough to do something less vanilla.

    This part is skippable, right? Any reason a user should ever care about this?

    (note: never heard of LVM before this thread)

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

    It makes adding space easier down the road, either by linking disks or if you clone your root drive to a larger drive, which tends to not be something most "end users" (I try not to use that description but you said it heh) would do. Yes, using LVM is optional.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

    It's all skippable if you want... Just put a large / filesystem on a partition and be on your way. There are good reasons for using it in some cases (see my response now).

    [–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

    This would absolutely be my thinking too. When I was still newish to linux, I remember lots of confusion with LVM and trying to reformat drives.

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago
    [–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Can you explain LVM in practice to me? I used ext4 and now Fedora Kinoite with BTRFS, the filsystem never makes any problems and some fancy features just work.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

    In practice, you would split a disk up to keep /home separate from/ and probably other parts of the filesystem too like /var/log.. this has long been an accepted practice to keep a full disk from bringing something production offline completely and/or complicating the recovery process. Now, you could use partitions but once those are set, it's hard to rearrange them without dumping all the data and restoring it under the new tables. LVM stands for Logical Volume Manager and puts an abstraction layer between the filesystems and the partitions (or whole disk if you are into that). This means you can add Disks arbitrarily in the future and add parts of those disks to the filesystems as required. This can really minimize or even eliminate downtime when you have a filesystem getting filled up and there's nothing you can easily remove (like a database).

    It's good to know but with the proliferation of cloud and virtual disks it's just easier on those systems to leave off LVM and just keep the filesystems on their own virtual disks and grow the disk as required. It is invaluable when running important production systems on bare metal servers even today.

    Hope this helps.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

    Thanks! So BTRFS does something similar with volumes, but baked in.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

    I should also point out that some modern filesystems like btrfs and zfs have these capabilities built into the filesystems natively so adding LVM into the mix there wouldn't add anything and could, in fact, cause headaches.