On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > If it's _necessary_, that's one thing. I've yet to really see any
> > backing up necessity on any of this at all though. Right now it seems
> > to be sitting in the "nice to have" category.
> For the record, it is _literally_ sitting in our "nice to have" category.
> > Perhaps someone from the cloud team could look at existing images from
> > other distros and figure out kernel sizes there, and how it plays into
> > usage and cost in those environments?
> On the ubuntu EC2 image, /lib/modules/$(uname -r) is 24M + 5.2M vmlinuz +
> 1.1M in /lib/firmware. Total package size is 32M on disk. And 5.9M initrd.
> CoreOS is bigger, with 33M in /lib/modules and 5.2M in lib/firmware, and a
> /19M vmlinuz.
Yeah, hard numbers to compete with! :-)
The only way to win is to not play at all? :)
Small note too, just because the vmlinuz are of a certain size does
not mean they contain similar content. Without really digging into
the config settings it's hard to do a true apples to apples
comparison. Still, having the overall sizes handy is helpful, thanks.
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz +
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
include it in my kernel numbers for that reason.
He just has to cut 35MB or so from /lib/modules/. We can probably
and dime and review a lot of cruft to get there, but what is that 35MB
really doing to get us anything? I am sure half of that can be removed by
re-examining the minimal-list he sent (I can even help there).
Right. Considering the bloat elsewhere in the distro, I think we can
start with what I have and work from there if needed.
Maybe impose only xfs as the fs of choice or some other restrictions
chop it further, but then we lose flexibility.
Oh dear. Please not another FS thread. So many emails from last week...
Instead of competing with Ubuntu on minimalist can we compete on
close but a lot more flexible? Do Ubuntu users have much choice on how
they configure their environment? Or is Fedora Cloud providing a generic
cookie cutter installation?
Right, I kind of like that we'd have a smaller core package that is
still broadly useful.