CentOS and LVM partitions

[Tony E - Jaraeth]

Another thing to note, you can't see the "partitioning" that CentOS is
going to do to your LVM partition off the bad via the text-based
console.  When I installed CentOS 5, I did a graphical install, then it
allowed me to resize the LVM LV's with great ease to my taste.

~ Tony E


Matt Graham wrote:
> After a long battle with technology, der.hans wrote:
>> Am 21. Sep, 2007 schwzte Craig White so:
>>> suit yourself - bear in mind that Red Hat really really likes to use
>>> 'File system labels' for mounting (as you noted in /etc/fstab) and
>>> therefore, when you manually partition, make sure you use sensible label
>>> names so Red Hat can keep track.
>> The installer is still adding and using labels. I'm also moving everything
>> over to labels anyway. How do you read and assign labels to LVM
>> partitions?
> 
> You don't.  A partition of type 0x8e typically has one PV in it.  The PV 
> belongs to a VG.  A VG has one or more LVs in it.  The LVs are roughly 
> equivalent to ordinary disk partitions; you make filesystems within the LVs.  
> You can run e2label or tune*fs on an LV.  When I did this for a multiboot 
> 64/32-bit system, I had LVs named /dev/vg/usr32 and /dev/vg/usr64.  Their 
> ext3 labels were "usr32" and "usr64", even though I never mounted by label.
> 
>>> the concept of using labels instead of devices comes from the notion
>>> that bios alterations, SAN systems, etc. will present drives to the
>>> system in varying ways but a label never changes.
>> Yeah, I like them :).
> 
> ...then you have situations like installing CentOS 3 and CentOS 4 to different 
> disks on the same system without changing the installer's defaults.  So you 
> have 2 filesystems with LABEL="root" (or something) and stupidity ensues.  I 
> haven't done this but people on comp.os.linux.misc have.  (This means that at 
> some point, they'll move from mount-by-label to mount-by-UUID, and that'll be 
> fairly icky and incomprehensible.)
>