I just tried to spin up "cloud" instance of F21 on EC2 only to discover it's requirements for 12G volume (???). Am I doing something wrong or did F21 jumped from moderate 2-3G (F20) over to 12G "overnight". I assumed "cloud image" would be a tiny set of packages with very little requirements to fit into all flavors offered by EC2 and alike. Was this done to accommodate Docker?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:40:46PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
I just tried to spin up "cloud" instance of F21 on EC2 only to discover it's requirements for 12G volume (???). Am I doing something wrong or did F21 jumped from moderate 2-3G (F20) over to 12G "overnight". I assumed "cloud image" would be a tiny set of packages with very little requirements to fit into all flavors offered by EC2 and alike. Was this done to accommodate Docker?
This is something in the upload process — it was supposed to be fixed in the final and maybe that got overlooked.
It is in fact actually quite small — under 400MB on disk.
On 12/16/2014 03:00 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:40:46PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
I just tried to spin up "cloud" instance of F21 on EC2 only to discover it's requirements for 12G volume (???). Am I doing something wrong or did F21 jumped from moderate 2-3G (F20) over to 12G "overnight". I assumed "cloud image" would be a tiny set of packages with very little requirements to fit into all flavors offered by EC2 and alike. Was this done to accommodate Docker?
This is something in the upload process — it was supposed to be fixed in the final and maybe that got overlooked.
It is in fact actually quite small — under 400MB on disk.
that is what I thought - looking inside the instance not much space was utilized, however lots got "reserved".
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
-- David
On 2014-12-17 13:09, David Gay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
EBS images can only use 1 GB size increments, and FWIW, the stock images that AWS produce come in 2 GB and 8 GB variants. How does 2 GB sound?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:09:03 -0500 (EST) David Gay dgay@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
Anaconda requires at least a 3G disk to install so the disk image backing the cloud image is 3G you need to be at least that
Dennis
On 12/17/2014 10:32 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Anaconda requires at least a 3G disk to install so the disk image backing the cloud image is 3G you need to be at least that
are you saying that this has been introduced in F21? I have just spun up F20 on a 2G disk with no issues.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:03:12 -0700 Dmitry Makovey dmitry@athabascau.ca wrote:
On 12/17/2014 10:32 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Anaconda requires at least a 3G disk to install so the disk image backing the cloud image is 3G you need to be at least that
are you saying that this has been introduced in F21? I have just spun up F20 on a 2G disk with no issues.
yes, we changed how we made disk images in f21 and as a result we had to make the minimal disk image bigger. it could be made smaller again with changes to anaconda
Dennis
On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, David Gay wrote:
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
A bit of a side-track: is there a documentation on workflow you use for creating/uploading those? I haven't seen any detailed step-by-step guides for creation and upload of Fedora images so far...
On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, David Gay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
/gentle/ bump?
Is any help required to get F21 "smaller" images to AWS? I'd love to help (if I can) since I'm interested in the outcome myself.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Makovey" dmitry@athabascau.ca To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 3:02:20 PM Subject: Re: EC2 cloud image size
On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, David Gay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
/gentle/ bump?
Is any help required to get F21 "smaller" images to AWS? I'd love to help (if I can) since I'm interested in the outcome myself.
-- Dmitry Makovey Web Systems Administrator Athabasca University (780) 675-6245
Confidence is what you have before you understand the problem Woody Allen
When in trouble when in doubt run in circles scream and shout http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19330
cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Hey -- I actually solved this problem during the holidays. Lowered the size to 3 GB as suggested. There just haven't been any new builds that have gone through, and I haven't cut a new version just yet anyway (due to the holidays). It's no problem for me to send someone a list of fresh AMIs of the F21 cloud build with the lowered size tomorrow, if someone can toss them on the official website, as well. But yeah, this is all done. Just had to tweak two numbers is all.
-- oddshocks
On 01/02/2015 05:46 PM, David Gay wrote:
Hey -- I actually solved this problem during the holidays. Lowered the size to 3 GB as suggested. There just haven't been any new builds that have gone through, and I haven't cut a new version just yet anyway (due to the holidays). It's no problem for me to send someone a list of fresh AMIs of the F21 cloud build with the lowered size tomorrow, if someone can toss them on the official website, as well. But yeah, this is all done. Just had to tweak two numbers is all.
Yay David! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gay" dgay@redhat.com To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 4:46:44 PM Subject: Re: EC2 cloud image size
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Makovey" dmitry@athabascau.ca To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 3:02:20 PM Subject: Re: EC2 cloud image size
On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, David Gay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
Does it mean that "soon enough" we'll see an updated AMI with moderate disk demands?
For some value of "soon enough", yeah. Sorry about that -- I'm checking with David Gay, who wrote the uploader.
Yeah, this was my oversight. Seems the cloud base image is only 425 MB. I can produce new AMIs right now. Do you think a 1 GB or 500 MB drive would be best, or something else?
/gentle/ bump?
Is any help required to get F21 "smaller" images to AWS? I'd love to help (if I can) since I'm interested in the outcome myself.
-- Dmitry Makovey Web Systems Administrator Athabasca University (780) 675-6245
Confidence is what you have before you understand the problem Woody Allen
When in trouble when in doubt run in circles scream and shout http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19330
cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Hey -- I actually solved this problem during the holidays. Lowered the size to 3 GB as suggested. There just haven't been any new builds that have gone through, and I haven't cut a new version just yet anyway (due to the holidays). It's no problem for me to send someone a list of fresh AMIs of the F21 cloud build with the lowered size tomorrow, if someone can toss them on the official website, as well. But yeah, this is all done. Just had to tweak two numbers is all.
-- oddshocks _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Regarding this, I've published a list of new F21 cloud x86_64 base AMIs -- in both HVM and PV -- to this list[1]. These AMIs have been registered with our minimum size requirement, 3 GB. Much smaller than the previous 12 GB registrations. Hopefully, this solves everyone's issues for now. If desired, I can send out a list of fresh Atomic AMIs with the lower 3 GB requirement, too. That email was mostly an announcement that base images are now available in HVM, though.
[1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2015-January/004831.html
-- oddshocks
On 01/02/2015 05:46 PM, David Gay wrote:
Hey -- I actually solved this problem during the holidays. Lowered the size to 3 GB as suggested. There just haven't been any new builds that have gone through, and I haven't cut a new version just yet anyway (due to the holidays). It's no problem for me to send someone a list of fresh AMIs of the F21 cloud build with the lowered size tomorrow, if someone can toss them on the official website, as well. But yeah, this is all done. Just had to tweak two numbers is all.
OK, So David's part is done, however AWS still shows old AMI's. Does it mean we have to nudge/bump someone to push new images over?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Makovey" dmitry@athabascau.ca To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:50:52 AM Subject: Re: EC2 cloud image size
On 01/02/2015 05:46 PM, David Gay wrote:
Hey -- I actually solved this problem during the holidays. Lowered the size to 3 GB as suggested. There just haven't been any new builds that have gone through, and I haven't cut a new version just yet anyway (due to the holidays). It's no problem for me to send someone a list of fresh AMIs of the F21 cloud build with the lowered size tomorrow, if someone can toss them on the official website, as well. But yeah, this is all done. Just had to tweak two numbers is all.
OK, So David's part is done, however AWS still shows old AMI's. Does it mean we have to nudge/bump someone to push new images over?
The AMIs need to be updated on the web team's side. I'm told I'd probably have to send a patch in rather than get commit access. I'd like to provide them with a list of entirely fresh AMIs with the smaller volume size, including the new base HVM images. Do we have someone who's looped in with the web team (maybe robyduck?) who can manage this? I could write a patch myself, but I've looked at the code and I'm unfamiliar with the particular templating language and JS used on that area of the page, and also, we need a new button/selector/something so that users can choose paravirtual or HVM when they select "Fedora Cloud base". I figured the implementation of that new button/selector/whatever should be left up to the web team.
All that being said, if someone can connect us to the web team on this one, I can send out a fresh, signed list of AMIs to this list. From there, the web team can update the page with the new AMI IDs however they see fit.
-- David
-
David Gay -
Dennis Gilmore -
Dmitry Makovey -
Garrett Holmstrom -
Matthew Miller