Hi, Pascal Hambourg <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Mon, 5 Aug 2024 00:04:42 +0200): > On 24/07/2024 at 17:16, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > Poll: What should be the MIN, MAX and minimum disk size to reach MAX for > > Here is a first proposal to start the discussion. The raw priority value > in recipes is quite obscure, and it turns out that expressing it with > the minimum disk size to reach MAX is not as easy as I expected, so I > ended up expressing the priority as a percentage of available disk space > (%free, not to be confused with a percentage of memory %RAM). > > > - EFI partition (similar requirements as /boot for systemd-boot ?) > > - /boot > > - swap > > ------ old ------- | ------- new ------- > MIN PRIO MAX | MIN PRIO MAX > efi 538M 0%free N/A | 768M 5%free 1G > /boot 768M 3%free 1G | 768M 5%free 1G > swap 100%RAM 0%free N/A | 400M 5%free 100%RAM > > Rationale: > - The ESP has the same size as /boot to support BLS/systemd-boot layout. > - swap=RAM allows hibernation in most use cases. > - Limit swap size to 5% disk space on small disk space with huge RAM. > - 400M swap is ~5% of the minimum disk size (~8G). > > > > - / in atomic recipe > > * "atomic" (all in / filesystem): > ----- old ----- | ------- new ------ > MIN PRIO MAX | MIN PRIO MAX > / 900M 97% unlim | 5G 85%free unlim > > > - / in home recipe > > - /home in home recipe > > * "home" (separated / and /home): > ----- old ----- | ------- new ------ > MIN PRIO MAX | MIN PRIO MAX > / 1.5G 33% 30G | 5G 5%free 100G > /home 1G 66% unlim | 1G 80%free unlim > > Rationale: > - 5GB / should be enough to install a desktop environment. > - No need to limit / so much with plenty of disk space. > - I have seen users complaining about the 30GB / being almost full. > > > - / in multi recipe > > - /var in multi recipe > > - /tmp in multi recipe (or should tmpfs be used ?) > > - /home in multi recipe > > * "multi" (separated /, /var, /tmp and /home): > ----- old ----- | ------- new ------ > MIN PRIO MAX | MIN PRIO MAX > / 2G 18% 25G | 4G 5%free 100G > /var 1G 6% 10G | 2G 2%free 40G > /tmp 256M 1% 2G | 512M 1%free 3G > /home 4G 73% unlim | 1G 77%free unlim > > Rationale: > - Same as above. > - No need to limit /var so much with plenty of disk space. > - There are use cases which can require a lot of space in /var > (databases, virtual machines...) > - /home does not necessarily require at least 4GB. Users installing on a > small disk usually do not intend to store a lot of data. > - Why should /home minimum size be bigger than in the "home" recipe ?
I think all of the above is for sure an improvement compared to what we have now. > Open questions: > > Is there an intended use case for built-in recipes ? > Should there be different recipes for different uses cases ? > E.g.: > - minimal installation > - workstation with graphic desktop environment > - server Doesn't sound like a bad idea IMO. Could probably solve the long standing issue "#987503 swap partition only 1 GB instead of at least 1 x RAM size" stating that hibernation is broken for machines with RAM bigger than 1G... > systemd >= 256~rc3-3 makes /tmp a tmpfs by default unless a mount is > explicitly defined. It means that atomic and home recipes do not need to > allocate space for /tmp in / any more. But on the other hand they may > need to raise the minimum swap size because tmpfs can use swap space > under memory pressure. > Should the multi recipes stop creating a /tmp partition for consistency > with other recipes ? Dont't know. Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
