Hi, Pascal Hambourg <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:47:42 +0200): > On 05/08/2024 at 17:47, Holger Wansing wrote: > >> > >> 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... > > Do you mean to create specific recipes for hibernation ?
A recipe specific for server installations, which limits the swap to let's say 1G or 2G, because the machine has enough RAM built-in. The other (already existing) recipes could be focused on desktops/laptops, which use something like Swap=RAM, to allow hibernation. Having such concept, would probably allow to get rid of the partman-auto/cap-ram thingy, which solved one problem by creating a new one... > The issue you mention is not caused by current recipes but the > introduction of partman-auto/cap-ram=1024 as a default to address the > case of systems with more RAM than disk space. My proposal above already > aims to address both issues by limiting the swap size to the lower of > 100% RAM size and ~5% (open to discussion) disk space. Of course it also > requires to disable partman-auto/cap-ram. Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
