On Friday, June 5, 2020 11:48:14 AM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:43 AM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:52 am, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > That is the plan, otherwise the swap-on-zram device probably never > > > gets used. And then its overhead, which is small but not zero, is just > > > a waste. > > > > > > > > I thought the plan was to get rid of the disk-based swap partition, > > since it has an unacceptable impact on system responsiveness? > > > Default new installations, yes. No disk-based swap partition. > > For upgrades, there's no mechanism to remove an existing > swap-on-drive. And the installer will still permit swap-on-drive being > added in custom partitioning. Both of these paths results in two swap > devices. > > We could ask Anaconda, if a custom installation creates swap-on-disk, > to remove /etc/systemd/zram-generator.conf. And in that case, users > will not get swap-on-zram. And we could also forgo the change being > applied on upgrades. It may be best to respect the user's decision, and not add a zram device on upgraded systems. This would lead to less unexpected behavior. I'd support that, for sure :) -- John M. Harris, Jr. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
