On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:23:43 -0700
Tim Flink <tflink(a)redhat.com> wrote:
<snip>
> If we intended to mostly build those images on dev's
computers, I'd
> probably prefer virt-builder. But my current impression is that
> local building will be a secondary option, and we'll primarily offer
> pre-created images for download (even downloading them
> automatically). Which makes sense, it's easier for the dev, and less
> error-prone. So in that light (assuming no one has different plans
> in mind), it doesn't really matter which technology we choose to
> build it. Image size is a factor here, though. I don't have any real
> numbers here, it would be very interesting to see the same image
> (same package set, same filesystem size) built by both tools and
> compare the output size (ideally even after running zerofree on them
> and compressing them). My guess is that they should have the same
> size (what would cause a difference?), but we might be surprised. Do
> we have a volunteer to test this? :)
I can give this a try later today - I have both tools installed on a
machine here.
I've created images for taskotron using both taskotron-vmbuilder and
imagefactory. They're similar but not identical - I based the
imagefactory off the F22 cloud images instead of specifying the server
group install and virt-builder has some restrictions on what you can do
with disk space which imagefactory does not have.
I've put all the files up for review: the kickstart for imagefactory,
the yaml file for vmbuilder and both created images, gzipped.
https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/taskotron/testimages/
Time of creation operation
--------------------------
imagefactory: 16m6.596s
vmbuilder: 7m19.273s
Image sizes
-----------
20151113-taskotron_server-22.qcow2.gz 818M
20151113-taskotron_server-22.qcow2 11G
20151113-imagebuilder-taskotron.qcow 3.0G
20151113-imagebuilder-taskotron.qcow.gz 358M