resizing rootfs to fit the disk

[Paul Fox]

martin wrote:
 > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Paul Fox <pgf at laptop.org> wrote:
 > > martin -- can you remind me of the use case for this flag?
 > 
 > "I've right-sized my OS image and would like to have one less moving thing".
 > 
 > Deployment teams can probably just set the "we're resized already" --
 > so it doesn't actually require extra work...

you're assuming there needs to be such a flag.  attempting to
resize an already right-sized filesystem probably takes less time
than checking a flag, so i wasn't going to add one if i didn't
need to.  but you're saying i need to, so i guess i will.

but again:  where should such a flag go?  is there a precedent
for such things?

 > >  >  - With some added bundles, there is the risk that our Journal-is-full
 > >  > warning might appear on first boot; maybe it should not appear or use
 > >  > a lower threshold until the "resize complete" flag is set.
 > >
 > > i'd say that if they're that close to filling the disk, the
 > > filesystem size should be made larger at build time.  the only
 > > reason not to do that is if the target disk is very small, and if
 > > it's that small, then they've added too many bundles.
 > 
 > Chris wants to generate a single image that is chock-full with as many
 > sample activities as we can fit. It is a veritable squeeze for the
 > sub-2GB image and will probably trigger the warning.

i'm not sure you've changed my argument.  you've just pointed out 
that i should have it with chris, too.  ;-)

 > 
 > And I forgot another To Do: add a big note in the release notes
 > explaining why the output of df is unreliable and variable until the
 > resize completes. It's bound to surprise a few people ;-)

bah.  it's a learning experience.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at laptop.org