On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:22 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:27 AM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> One item I haven't worked through yet is how 'inst.zram' should
> inhibit the zram-generator. The generator runs during early boot.
>
> My current thinking is 'inst.zram' can just 'systemctl stop
> swap-create@zram0.service' since it will exist already. In that case
> it could optionally be renamed to 'inst.nozram'. What do you think?
>
> I think the timing of the changes isn't very critical. If the release
> images have zram-generator first, it will run sooner and the Anaconda
> implementation will fail (error messages in logs, but otherwise
> non-fatal). Whereas if the Anaconda implementations go away first, the
> lack of swap on zram in low memory situations might cause problems.
I have opened a draft for the Anaconda zram service. It will be marked as blocked until it is safe to merge it:
I've opened an issue with upstream zram-generator folks. Igor suggests
they could parse for 'inst.zram' or 'inst.nozram' and inhibit the
creation of swap-on-zram.
https://github.com/systemd/zram-generator/issues/42
--
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
_______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
