Comment 3 for bug 48311

Hello Matt and Colin

We are assessing Ubuntu Server 6.06 LTS (32 and 64bit) for use as a low cost Linux web hosting platform in our Datacentres across Europe.

Having used the Debian Installer for installing Debian for some time now, we were keen to try out the Ubuntu kickstart install as a replacement. Debian has been a popular choice for many of our customers over Redhat for a number of reasons and we feel that Ubuntu can trump that. However, like Matt, we have noted some issues with this in relation to partitioning.

We have noted the following results so far:

1. When using the following config for partitioning:

# disk config
zerombr yes
clearpart --all --initlabel
bootloader --location=mbr
part / --fstype=ext3 --size=8192 --asprimary
part swap --size=512 --grow --maxsize=2048 --asprimary
part /var --fstype=ext3 --size=6000 --grow --asprimary

This produces an installed system which is partitioned as follows:

root@ubuntu:~# fdisk -l /dev/hda

Disk /dev/hda: 40.0 GB, 40016019456 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

   Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 1 996 8000338+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 997 1058 498015 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/hda3 1059 4865 30579727+ 5 Extended
/dev/hda5 1059 4865 30579696 83 Linux

root@ubuntu:~# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 7.6G 485M 6.7G 7% /
varrun 125M 48K 125M 1% /var/run
varlock 125M 0 125M 0% /var/lock
udev 125M 40K 125M 1% /dev
devshm 125M 0 125M 0% /dev/shm
lrm 125M 18M 107M 15% /lib/modules/2.6.15-27-686/volatile
/dev/hda5 29G 266M 27G 1% /var

root@ubuntu:~# mount
/dev/hda1 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
/sys on /sys type sysfs (rw)
varrun on /var/run type tmpfs (rw)
varlock on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw)
procbususb on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
udev on /dev type tmpfs (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
devshm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
lrm on /lib/modules/2.6.15-27-686/volatile type tmpfs (rw)
/dev/hda5 on /var type ext3 (rw)

Hence, the system has not followed our request to partition /var as a primary partition. But it has for / and swap partitions.

2. When using the following config for partitioning:

# disk config
zerombr yes
clearpart --all --initlabel
bootloader --location=mbr
part / --fstype ext3 --size 8192
part swap --size 2048
part /var --fstype ext3 --size 1 --grow

This produces an installed system which is partitioned as follows:

root@ubuntu:~# fdisk -l /dev/sda

Disk /dev/sda: 36.2 GB, 36270243840 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4409 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

   Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 4409 35415261 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 1 996 8000307 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 997 1245 2000061 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda7 1246 4409 25414798+ 83 Linux

root@ubuntu:~# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda5 7.6G 485M 6.7G 7% /
varrun 1013M 48K 1013M 1% /var/run
varlock 1013M 0 1013M 0% /var/lock
udev 1013M 68K 1013M 1% /dev
devshm 1013M 0 1013M 0% /dev/shm
lrm 1013M 18M 995M 2% /lib/modules/2.6.15-27-686/volatile
/dev/sda7 24G 266M 23G 2% /var

As you can see the Ubuntu kickstart leans towards a preference to place all partitions on extended/logical partitions.

In addition, is it possible to use the include parameter within the Ubuntu kickstart configuration file so that we can check for IDE vs SCSI disks and create an appropriate partition configuration. We have had to do this with Redhat as otherwise we were noting that the Redhat partitioner would attempt to use a second disk to span the partitioning; hence, we have been specifying the actual disk to use for partitions eg.:

part / --fstype=ext3 --size=8192 --asprimary --ondisk=sda
part swap --recommended --ondisk=sda
part /var --fstype=ext3 --size=6000 --grow --asprimary --ondisk=sda

We would definitely prefer to see better control of partitioning within this installation method before moving to Ubuntu. Have you any suggestions about how we might resolve this partitioning issue without resorting to some pre-install shell scripting? Is there another installation method which is better supported and regarded as the preferred method of install?

kind regards

- William Oakley