On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 data >> > 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. >> See >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist#Change:_Cloud-Friendly_Kernel_Packaging >> >> :) >> >> >> > 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 + <similar?> > firmwre. 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 nickel > 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 and > 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 pretty > 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. josh _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
