Re: [PATCH] Make swap suggestions more flexible

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 15:20 +0200, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 08:01 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 08:35 +0200, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 21:41 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 15:44 +0200, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> > > > > Resolves: rhbz#815557
> > > > > 
> > > > > Simple patch making swap suggestions more flexible. However the new values are
> > > > > not consistent with the documentation [1] and the user may end up with a machine
> > > > > that cannot be hibernated.
> > > > 
> > > > The hibernate question is a good one. Apparently there is no simple
> > > > solution that works for all cases. Go figure.
> > > > 
> > > > I have one comment about the patch, below.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744129#c2
> > > > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  iutil.py |   12 ++++++------
> > > > >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/iutil.py b/iutil.py
> > > > > index f7254e2..f36ea83 100644
> > > > > --- a/iutil.py
> > > > > +++ b/iutil.py
> > > > > @@ -455,23 +455,23 @@ def swapSuggestion(quiet=0):
> > > > >  	
> > > > >      #table suggested in rhbz#744129
> > > > >      if mem <= 4096:
> > > > > -        minswap = 2048
> > > > > +        minswap = 1024
> > > > >          maxswap = 2048
> > > > >  
> > > > >      elif 4096 < mem <= 16384:
> > > > > -        minswap = 4096
> > > > > +        minswap = 2048
> > > > >          maxswap = 4096
> > > > >  
> > > > >      elif 16384 < mem <= 65536:
> > > > > -        minswap = 8192
> > > > > +        minswap = 4096
> > > > >          maxswap = 8192
> > > > >  
> > > > >      elif 65536 < mem <= 262144:
> > > > > -        minswap = 16384
> > > > > +        minswap = 8192
> > > > >          maxswap = 16384
> > > > >  
> > > > >      else:
> > > > > -        minswap = 32768
> > > > > +        minswap = 16384
> > > > >          maxswap = 32768
> > > > >  
> > > > >      if not quiet:
> > > > > @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ def swapSameAsRam(quiet=0):
> > > > >      #see #rhbz587152
> > > > >      if mem <= SWAP_SIZE_LIMIT:
> > > > >          log.info("Swap attempt of %sM to %sM", mem, mem)
> > > > > -        return (mem, mem)
> > > > > +        return (mem / 2, mem)
> > > > 
> > > > In this case I don't think you should be flexible. If they said they
> > > > want the same amount of swap as there is ram, give them exactly that.
> > > Well, the result of the discussion on rhbz#744129 was that if we change
> > > the swapSuggestion to suggest less swap than RAM, we can't use it in
> > > autopartitioning, because that would mean users with machines that
> > > cannot hibernate. So we decided to use swapSameAsRam for
> > > autopartitioning and the new bug (rhbz#815557) is the case of GUI
> > > installation with "Use all space". So summed up that means either
> > > rhbz#815557 is not a bug or this case has to be also flexible (which
> > > would resolve it). However making it flexible means again users with
> > > machines that cannot hibernate.
> > 
> > So swapSuggestion produces a result that we don't think is acceptable
> > for autopart? In that case, why do we think it's acceptable for general
> > use ala kickstart's 'part swap --recommended'? It seems to me like we
> > should either never make recommendations that preclude hibernation or we
> > should never worry about hibernation when making them.
> That's beacause there is a --same-as-ram kickstart option and
> --recommended does the same that is recommended in the documentation. On
> the other hand we are expecting less experienced users will be using the
> 'GUI -> Use all space' option and such users shouldn't end up with a
> machine that cannot hibernate.
> 
> > 
> > If we use flexible size requests for swap, we can show a warning if swap
> > ends up being too small for hibernate. If we use fixed size requests we
> > may need to provide more information than "not enough space" when we can
> > see that swap requirement plus minimum root lv size is larger than the
> > vg.
> I am for the latter. Experienced users with a lot of RAM should be able
> to handle that situation. The former may be confusing for less
> experienced users.
> 
> Do you agree? Shall I start to work on that modification? Do you mean by
> 'fixed size requests' both swapSuggestion and swapSameAsRam?

I am okay with using same-as-ram for autopart, provided that we get
clearer error reporting for the more-ram-than-disk case. In that case,
would you leave swapSuggestion to still give flexible suggestions?

Dave

> 


_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list


[Index of Archives]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]
  Powered by Linux