resizing rootfs to fit the disk
pgf at laptop.org
Wed Mar 10 18:27:22 EST 2010
> 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 fox, pgf at laptop.org
More information about the Devel