On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:29 -0400, Jeff Weiss wrote: > Michael Solberg wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:13 -0400, Jeff Weiss wrote: > >> Er, on second thought there's really not much sense in eating up swap > >> space. Maybe we should just turn off the cache (keepcache=0) ? > > > > This is definitely the best solution. > > > >> I suspect that means it'll always have to download headers, but > >> bandwidth is more plentiful than memory on the XO :) > > > > It's true - I do wonder though, is it really feasible to try to do > > updates on an XO? Six months from now running updates will eat at least > > 512MB, either blowing out the overlay or the RAM. This will require the > > user to re-burn the card. Maybe we need a different way to do updates. > > > > Michael. > > > > > > This is why I was really surprised when I heard we were shipping Live > images. I would think an installed image with say, 1.7gb of filesystems > and 256mb swap would have been the way to go. I'll try this while I'm testing tonight. I've noticed that the loop filesystems eat a ton of CPU cycles when the system goes into swap. Does anyone have concrete data on the maximum number of writes on an SD card? Michael. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
