Re: Memory requirements
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:36:52PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 13:33:06 -0700, Jeremiah Summers jmiah...@gmail.com wrote: Yes Literally I did, but as Adam just pointed out running Live just dumps the squashfs image to the drive and slaps grud on it. I'm not It actually dumps the ext4 image on the drive and then resizes it to fit the available space. The ext4 image is stored compressed inside of a squashfs file system on the live image. It would be nice to get rid of the embedded ext4 image now that squashfs supports special files and extended attributes (needed for selinuix labels), but there are some other roadblocks that will block that change for the near future. There are a couple of issues here: (1) Our current method of resizing the ext4 filesystem to minimal size and then expanding it on the target mangles the ext4 filesystem layout and apparently makes eventual performance poor. I don't exactly understand the details of what is happening but Ric Wheeler (CC'd) should do. (2) Expanding an ext4 filesystem is really fast because we're bypassing the whole VFS layer when doing this. That's where the benefit of this method comes from. I somehow doubt that unpacking a squashfs will be nearly as fast (in my tests, unpacking a filesystem from a tarball is 10x slower than just resizing a filesystem). So the main benefit of the live CD technique -- speed -- will be lost if we make this change. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On 08/31/2011 09:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: Yes, both of those are true. I just get a bit irked that the issue keeps getting raised as if it's some stunning new discovery and the anaconda team has been hideously lax in not caring about it, because it's well-known and they _do_ care about it. I don't think this is something to be irked about. There is a genuine problem and people don't seem to be aware of the changes being made. I am not sure how to keep track of the progress here. Perhaps if Anaconda team talked more about what is happening, that would be useful. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: On 2011/08/29 15:04 (GMT-0700) Jeremiah Summers composed: I just repatched Anaconda to use 512M Literally? If so, does that work on systems with 512M installed but with 8M allocated to an onboard video chip? -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Yes Literally I did, but as Adam just pointed out running Live just dumps the squashfs image to the drive and slaps grud on it. I'm not sure about the install, however I have been tweaking initrd's for doing a netinstall, I may just find out soon. I wonder though is there a way to allow Anaconda to be semi smart and realize here I'm running livecd let's bump down that mem require. In that case it would allow those a install method with low mem. Kind Regards, Jeremiah -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 13:33:06 -0700, Jeremiah Summers jmiah...@gmail.com wrote: Yes Literally I did, but as Adam just pointed out running Live just dumps the squashfs image to the drive and slaps grud on it. I'm not It actually dumps the ext4 image on the drive and then resizes it to fit the available space. The ext4 image is stored compressed inside of a squashfs file system on the live image. It would be nice to get rid of the embedded ext4 image now that squashfs supports special files and extended attributes (needed for selinuix labels), but there are some other roadblocks that will block that change for the near future. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 14:36, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 13:33:06 -0700, Jeremiah Summers jmiah...@gmail.com wrote: Yes Literally I did, but as Adam just pointed out running Live just dumps the squashfs image to the drive and slaps grud on it. I'm not It actually dumps the ext4 image on the drive and then resizes it to fit the available space. The ext4 image is stored compressed inside of a squashfs file system on the live image. It would be nice to get rid of the embedded ext4 image now that squashfs supports special files and extended attributes (needed for selinuix labels), but there are some other roadblocks that will block that change for the near future. Heheh. If the majority of installs occur from live images.. would that make squashfs the new Fedora filesystem :). -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacLaren -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
It would be nice to get rid of the embedded ext4 image now that squashfs supports special files and extended attributes (needed for selinuix labels), but there are some other roadblocks that will block that change for the near future. Where is this issue being tracked? -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 15:22:21 -0700, John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote: It would be nice to get rid of the embedded ext4 image now that squashfs supports special files and extended attributes (needed for selinuix labels), but there are some other roadblocks that will block that change for the near future. Where is this issue being tracked? I had an RFE bug for it, but it was marked as deferred, as the issue was unlikely to be resolved any time soon. I didn't have time to work on it myself, so I am OK with that. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 15:22:21 -0700, John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote: It would be nice to get rid of the embedded ext4 image now that squashfs supports special files and extended attributes (needed for selinuix labels), but there are some other roadblocks that will block that change for the near future. Where is this issue being tracked? Here is the closed bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623707 It doesn't go into much detail, but the issue seems to be that squashfs doesn't work with writeable overlays. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 22:02 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Brian C. Lane b...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 04:15:37PM -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote: In both cases I had 2 gigs of ram. Should not be a memory issue. That is more than enough. Please file a bug(s) and include the logs from /tmp/*log Memory usage during install also depends on what the packages being installed do in their pre/post scripts. selinux is a big example of this, causing a large spike as it is installed. SELinux Enhancements. SELinux policy package now includes a pre-built policy that will only rebuild policy if any customizations have been made. A sample test run shows 4 times speedup on installing the package from 48 Seconds to 12 Seconds and max memory usage from 38M to 6M. In addition to that, [1] 1: http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45414.html Yes. The reason why that work has been done is because everyone kicked up a stink about anaconda using too much memory, so the anaconda team looked closer into what was taking up so much memory, found out selinux policy installation caused quite a significant chunk of it, and told Dan about it. None of this is news to anyone actually involved in the relevant development teams =) this topic has really been done to death on this list and many others. anaconda team is aware of the memory use issue and is working on fixing it. this selinux change is one of the fixes. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I would say thank you but the tone I'm getting in the email seems rather reluctant to try and be as memory efficient as possible, a little bit like we just did it to stop your whining. I'm sure that's not the tone you mean and even if so I'm sure you're not talking for the anaconda team. So regardless.. Thank You all who have beaten this thing to death and those who won't let it die until it's as efficient as possible with the hardware given. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 21:11 -0700, Jeremiah Summers wrote: I would say thank you but the tone I'm getting in the email seems rather reluctant to try and be as memory efficient as possible, a little bit like we just did it to stop your whining. I'm sure that's not the tone you mean and even if so I'm sure you're not talking for the anaconda team. Yes, both of those are true. I just get a bit irked that the issue keeps getting raised as if it's some stunning new discovery and the anaconda team has been hideously lax in not caring about it, because it's well-known and they _do_ care about it. =) So regardless.. Thank You all who have beaten this thing to death and those who won't let it die until it's as efficient as possible with the hardware given. seconded! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
Brian C. Lane wrote: selinux is a big example of this, causing a large spike as it is installed. That should[1] no longer be an issue. [1] http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45414.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Brian C. Lane b...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 04:15:37PM -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote: In both cases I had 2 gigs of ram. Should not be a memory issue. That is more than enough. Please file a bug(s) and include the logs from /tmp/*log Memory usage during install also depends on what the packages being installed do in their pre/post scripts. selinux is a big example of this, causing a large spike as it is installed. SELinux Enhancements. SELinux policy package now includes a pre-built policy that will only rebuild policy if any customizations have been made. A sample test run shows 4 times speedup on installing the package from 48 Seconds to 12 Seconds and max memory usage from 38M to 6M. In addition to that, [1] 1: http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45414.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: Brian C. Lane wrote: selinux is a big example of this, causing a large spike as it is installed. That should[1] no longer be an issue. [1] http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45414.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I just repatched Anaconda to use 512M, it's slow for LiveMedia but it works fine. Not sure why it was bumped to 768M I haven;t had any issues yet, in virtual or physical environments. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On 2011/08/29 15:04 (GMT-0700) Jeremiah Summers composed: I just repatched Anaconda to use 512M Literally? If so, does that work on systems with 512M installed but with 8M allocated to an onboard video chip? -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 22:02 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Brian C. Lane b...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 04:15:37PM -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote: In both cases I had 2 gigs of ram. Should not be a memory issue. That is more than enough. Please file a bug(s) and include the logs from /tmp/*log Memory usage during install also depends on what the packages being installed do in their pre/post scripts. selinux is a big example of this, causing a large spike as it is installed. SELinux Enhancements. SELinux policy package now includes a pre-built policy that will only rebuild policy if any customizations have been made. A sample test run shows 4 times speedup on installing the package from 48 Seconds to 12 Seconds and max memory usage from 38M to 6M. In addition to that, [1] 1: http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45414.html Yes. The reason why that work has been done is because everyone kicked up a stink about anaconda using too much memory, so the anaconda team looked closer into what was taking up so much memory, found out selinux policy installation caused quite a significant chunk of it, and told Dan about it. None of this is news to anyone actually involved in the relevant development teams =) this topic has really been done to death on this list and many others. anaconda team is aware of the memory use issue and is working on fixing it. this selinux change is one of the fixes. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 15:04 -0700, Jeremiah Summers wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: Brian C. Lane wrote: selinux is a big example of this, causing a large spike as it is installed. That should[1] no longer be an issue. [1] http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45414.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I just repatched Anaconda to use 512M, it's slow for LiveMedia but it works fine. Not sure why it was bumped to 768M I haven;t had any issues yet, in virtual or physical environments. live install is different from traditional install as it isn't installing any packages; no rpm scripts are run and take up resources. it's just dumping an image file to the hard disk. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:47:37PM -0500, David Lehman wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 23:13 -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote: I have tried installing Fedora 16 alpha (i386 version) on VMWare player and it dies starting up the installer. It also dies trying to install on my CTL 2GO pad. (Atom based tablet.) Same type of death as the vmware? Any ideas why? If you have less than 768M of memory you could have problems unpacking the initrd and/or starting the installer. 768 MB!!! When I want to stuff as many VMs onto a virtual machine as possible, RAM usage really matters. Particularly since RAM is currently cheap up to about 8 GB but becomes much more expensive above that (ie. up to about 6 VMs with all the overhead). I can still run Debian VMs in 128 MB and do useful stuff with them like light dynamic web serving. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On 08/27/2011 12:17 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: 768 MB!!! When I want to stuff as many VMs onto a virtual machine as possible, RAM usage really matters. Particularly since RAM is currently cheap up to about 8 GB but becomes much more expensive above that (ie. up to about 6 VMs with all the overhead). Many of us still have to deal with systems which don't have as much RAM and it is a problem that Anaconda takes up so much more memory than what a system uses post-installation. 256 MB would be ok. 512 MB is acceptable. Anything beyond that seems excessive. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Memory requirements
Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat.com writes: 768 MB!!! When I want to stuff as many VMs onto a virtual machine as possible, RAM usage really matters. Particularly since RAM is currently cheap up to about 8 GB but becomes much more expensive above that (ie. up to about 6 VMs with all the overhead). You can install a virtual guest using extra RAM (assuming your host has it) and then reduce it afterwards. AFAIK, the amount needed to run an already installed system is no greater than before. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:47:37PM -0500, David Lehman wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 23:13 -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote: I have tried installing Fedora 16 alpha (i386 version) on VMWare player and it dies starting up the installer. It also dies trying to install on my CTL 2GO pad. (Atom based tablet.) Same type of death as the vmware? Any ideas why? If you have less than 768M of memory you could have problems unpacking the initrd and/or starting the installer. 768 MB!!! When I want to stuff as many VMs onto a virtual machine as possible, RAM usage really matters. Particularly since RAM is currently cheap up to about 8 GB but becomes much more expensive above that (ie. up to about 6 VMs with all the overhead). I can still run Debian VMs in 128 MB and do useful stuff with them like light dynamic web serving. In both cases I had 2 gigs of ram. Should not be a memory issue. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 08:08:20AM +, Andre Robatino wrote: Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat.com writes: 768 MB!!! When I want to stuff as many VMs onto a virtual machine as possible, RAM usage really matters. Particularly since RAM is currently cheap up to about 8 GB but becomes much more expensive above that (ie. up to about 6 VMs with all the overhead). You can install a virtual guest using extra RAM (assuming your host has it) and then reduce it afterwards. AFAIK, the amount needed to run an already installed system is no greater than before. Why does it need so much to start with? It's just a graphical program that asks a few questions and then installs a few packages. Can't see why it would need such huge amounts of RAM. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements (was: Re: Fedora 16 Alpha i386 does not install in VMWare)
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:47:37PM -0500, David Lehman wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 23:13 -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote: I have tried installing Fedora 16 alpha (i386 version) on VMWare player and it dies starting up the installer. It also dies trying to install on my CTL 2GO pad. (Atom based tablet.) Same type of death as the vmware? Any ideas why? If you have less than 768M of memory you could have problems unpacking the initrd and/or starting the installer. 768 MB!!! When I want to stuff as many VMs onto a virtual machine as possible, RAM usage really matters. Particularly since RAM is currently cheap up to about 8 GB but becomes much more expensive above that OT: This does not seem to be the case ... I can buy 24GB for almost the same amount (~120€) I bought 6GB 3 years ago ... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Memory requirements
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 05:35:19PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Why does it need so much to start with? Because the installer initrd contains the kitchen sink. Dave -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:31:55AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: ... I understand that some one is working on reducing the memory footprint of anaconda. Will it be ready for F16? The treebuilder branch of lorax, where such a project is being developed, is not complete today. How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. I'd love to see reduced memory requirements for anaconda in F16. Use the installer that is available on a Live spin, instead of using anaconda. Being live (running from media without install) might have other advantages in the stated environment: try-before-install (without modifying the harddrive), etc. FYI - The installer on live *is* Anaconda. The primary difference is that it doesn't use yum to install the system, it copies the live image to the target and resizes it. This avoids several large memory hits that happen during package install. -- Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT) pgpzlQCcaWMrL.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On Aug 21, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 16:02:08 -0600, Pete Zaitcev zait...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:31:55 -0700 John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote: How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. It is not just Anaconda. F15 GA kernel would not even uncompress initramfs on anything below 1GB. There must be some caveat to this, as I am running F15 on a machine with only 512 MB of memory. I had to install F14 and upgrade to F15 to get there, but once set up, things work fine. In Fedora 15, all of the stage2 content, that is anaconda and supporting libraries, were made part of the initrd. This was a change from previous releases, where the initrd was just stage1, that was enough infrastructure to find and launch stage2. Moving it into the initrd resolved a lot of outstanding issues with Anaconda, and removed a lot of duplicate code that was difficult to maintain. There was a jump in memory requirements, as now all of that content was loaded into memory, and there are potential fixes being worked on. However they were deemed too risky for Fedora 15 and thus did not make it. This is why the install kernel requires significantly more ram than the kernel you'd use after you've done an install. - jlk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
Hello, what about using the Text Mode for the install? [1] According to the release notes it only needs 256MB of RAM so I think it should be feasible, or? [2] Are there anything preventing the usage of the textmode? Best regards, Johannes [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Installation_Guide/ch-guimode-x86.html#ch-tuimode-x86 [2] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Release_Notes-Welcome_to_Fedora_15.html On 08/21/2011 07:35 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 08/21/2011 10:51 AM, Aditya Patawari wrote: Use the installer that is available on a Live spin, instead of using anaconda. Arun, lets use live installer. Anaconda won't help in schools. Live, anyway, has its advantages and kids/teachers can check it out before installation. Live installer is part of Anaconda as well Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Anaconda memory requirements
Johannes Lips johannes.lips at googlemail.com writes: what about using the Text Mode for the install? [1] According to the release notes it only needs 256MB of RAM so I think it should be feasible, or? [2] Are there anything preventing the usage of the textmode? Unfortunately, those numbers are way out of date. See the comments in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682555 . Currently, it requires at least as much RAM to do a text-based install of F15 as a GUI install, which doesn't make sense, and is why I asked whether it would be possible to make a custom image to do a minimal (possibly text-based) install using reduced memory. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 16:02 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:31:55 -0700 John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote: How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. It is not just Anaconda. F15 GA kernel would not even uncompress initramfs on anything below 1GB. On VM hosts, I modify the VMs with virsh to have 1GB, then scale them down after installation. This is getting difficult to manage, I have to say. My almost brand new Red Hat corporate T400 only has 2GB, and I have a stack of almost good enough boxes. In the past we always felt free to push obsolete hardware over to BSD. Remember NPTL? CMOV? But now I have a feeling that we may be outstripping the speed of improvement in common hardware. Or maybe I need a better computer. I'm wondering what everyone's feeling is about it. I saw a tweet (by Mairin, I think) the 12GB is a life-changing experience. Well, if that's our new standard platform, then sure, no sense to optimize for 1GB. The initial post was very good at citing several sources which make it clear that the high requirements of F15 and current F16 are a temporary aberration, so I'm not sure this essay on how evil they are was really warranted. The anaconda team are very well aware, and working to reduce the requirements. The thread was a simple question about time frames. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 16:02:08 -0600, Pete Zaitcev zait...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:31:55 -0700 John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote: How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. It is not just Anaconda. F15 GA kernel would not even uncompress initramfs on anything below 1GB. There must be some caveat to this, as I am running F15 on a machine with only 512 MB of memory. I had to install F14 and upgrade to F15 to get there, but once set up, things work fine. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Anaconda memory requirements
Hi, We are working on a remix(considering a spin) of Fedora that could be used in schools[1], The problem is, most of these schools in India use donated computers and have very less memory (256 Mb - 512 Mb). According to this blog post https://anonbadger.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/need-more-memory/ and this email thread https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-February/149110.html i understand that some one is working on reducing the memory footprint of anaconda. Will it be ready for F16? How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? I'd love to see reduced memory requirements for anaconda in F16. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-February/149110.html -- Arun S.A.G http://zer0c00l.in/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
... I understand that some one is working on reducing the memory footprint of anaconda. Will it be ready for F16? The treebuilder branch of lorax, where such a project is being developed, is not complete today. How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. I'd love to see reduced memory requirements for anaconda in F16. Use the installer that is available on a Live spin, instead of using anaconda. Being live (running from media without install) might have other advantages in the stated environment: try-before-install (without modifying the harddrive), etc. -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:31:55 +0200, John Reiser wrote: Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. [...] Use the installer that is available on a Live spin, instead of using anaconda. This reduces the memory requirements by 128MB: Fedora-15-i686-Live-Desktop.iso Fedora requires 640 MB of memory to install, but you only have 256 MB on this machine. And even creating swap space in advance does not help - but a fix is underway: Fedora 15 Live refuses to install to disk on 256MB RAM, but installs fine with 2 simple workarounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708966 Regards, Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Anaconda memory requirements
Would it be possible to create a custom image that just does a minimal (possibly text-based) install? This might reduce memory requirements even more, and extra packages could be added later - the DVD could be used as a repo if bandwidth is an issue. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:31:55 -0700 John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote: How much memory will anaconda require to install Fedora 16? Anaconda requires 768MB, and more (=1GB) if there is no swap partition. It is not just Anaconda. F15 GA kernel would not even uncompress initramfs on anything below 1GB. On VM hosts, I modify the VMs with virsh to have 1GB, then scale them down after installation. This is getting difficult to manage, I have to say. My almost brand new Red Hat corporate T400 only has 2GB, and I have a stack of almost good enough boxes. In the past we always felt free to push obsolete hardware over to BSD. Remember NPTL? CMOV? But now I have a feeling that we may be outstripping the speed of improvement in common hardware. Or maybe I need a better computer. I'm wondering what everyone's feeling is about it. I saw a tweet (by Mairin, I think) the 12GB is a life-changing experience. Well, if that's our new standard platform, then sure, no sense to optimize for 1GB. -- Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
Use the installer that is available on a Live spin, instead of using anaconda. Arun, lets use live installer. Anaconda won't help in schools. Live, anyway, has its advantages and kids/teachers can check it out before installation. -- Aditya Patawari http://blog.adityapatawari.com/ India -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anaconda memory requirements
On 08/21/2011 10:51 AM, Aditya Patawari wrote: Use the installer that is available on a Live spin, instead of using anaconda. Arun, lets use live installer. Anaconda won't help in schools. Live, anyway, has its advantages and kids/teachers can check it out before installation. Live installer is part of Anaconda as well Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 09:42:40PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 10:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi http://anonbadger.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/need-more-memory/ Why does Anaconda need more memory? Such changes really need to be coordinated and documented better. We need changes in several documentation including installation guide and release notes not to mention changes in the default RAM allocation in virt-manager and so on. Can someone in the Anaconda team provide the details please. AFAIK it's more or less a bug. I assumed it was because the initrd is bigger, at least in the PXE case: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680542 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
http://anonbadger.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/need-more-memory/ Why does Anaconda need more memory? Such changes really need to be coordinated and documented better. We need changes in several documentation including installation guide and release notes not to mention changes in the default RAM allocation in virt-manager and so on. Can someone in the Anaconda team provide the details please. AFAIK it's more or less a bug. I assumed it was because the initrd is bigger, at least in the PXE case: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680542 Much of this is not a bug, it is intentional. The F14 way of 32MB isolinux/initrd.img 155MB images/install.img 32MB images/pxeboot/initrd.img [same as isolinux/initrd.img] has become in F15 141MB isolinux/initrd.img 0MB images/install.img [not present] 141MB images/pxeboot/initrd.img [same as isolinux/initrd.img] [The part that *may* be a space-on-the-platter bug is that the .iso might not de-dup isolinux/initrd.img and images/pxeboot/initrd.img by sharing the extents for those files, which have identical contents.] Note that 141MB (32MB + 155MB) so that the .iso and the total size of data fetched for any install can be smaller. However the main reason for the change is for simplicity and correctness in anaconda itself. Having a separate stage2 meant significant complexity and many bugs. In this message, Will Woods says that using xz compression instead of gzip can reduce the size of initrd.img to about 90MB: https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2011-February/msg00107.html So that will reduce the size of downloaded data, but the expanded initramfs could be almost the same size, requiring more RAM in F15 than F14. -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 11:17 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 07:50:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680542 Much of this is not a bug, it is intentional. The F14 way of That bug is that the kernel doesn't display a simple out of memory error message, instead scrolling a huge traceback off the screen that is useless for the user to tell what happened. that sure sounds like a bug, but that's not what I meant - I was recalling wwoods stating on IRC that he had a 'fix' of some kind planned. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 07:50:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680542 Much of this is not a bug, it is intentional. The F14 way of That bug is that the kernel doesn't display a simple out of memory error message, instead scrolling a huge traceback off the screen that is useless for the user to tell what happened. Why not make the Page Up and Page Down keys work as they do in other OSs? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 06:47:55PM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 07:50:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680542 Much of this is not a bug, it is intentional. The F14 way of That bug is that the kernel doesn't display a simple out of memory error message, instead scrolling a huge traceback off the screen that is useless for the user to tell what happened. Why not make the Page Up and Page Down keys work as they do in other OSs? Why? So users can scroll back to see this helpful stuff and try to decipher what it means? [0.171631] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs... [2.492083] swapper invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200d2, order=0, oom_adj=0, oom_score_adj=0 [2.493160] swapper cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0 [2.493649] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.38-0.rc5.git1.1.fc15.x86_64 #1 [2.494495] Call Trace: [2.494831] [81096749] ? cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed+0x91/0x9d [2.495658] [810da51c] ? dump_header+0x80/0x1bc [2.496296] [810da7bd] ? select_bad_process+0x54/0xf8 [2.496951] [810daf72] ? out_of_memory+0x2cf/0x378 [2.497615] [810def45] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x5f3/0x772 [2.498380] [8110833d] ? alloc_page_interleave+0x3c/0x83 [2.499087] [81108632] ? alloc_pages_current+0x8d/0xd0 [2.499771] [810d7cd4] ? find_get_page+0x22/0x62 [2.500420] [810d8726] ? __page_cache_alloc+0x77/0x7e [2.501094] [810d88f1] ? grab_cache_page_write_begin+0x54/0x9e [2.501869] [8113d107] ? simple_write_begin+0x34/0x83 [2.502563] [810d83bb] ? generic_file_buffered_write+0x114/0x240 [2.503455] [811e9b9c] ? avc_has_perm+0x51/0x63 [2.504073] [810d912b] ? __generic_file_aio_write+0x242/0x272 [2.504823] [810f35d8] ? unmap_mapping_range+0x5f/0x217 [2.505544] [81200ca0] ? ima_file_check+0x20/0x24 [2.506180] [810d91b3] ? generic_file_aio_write+0x58/0xa6 [2.506898] [81120dff] ? do_sync_write+0xbf/0xff [2.507558] [8114d82f] ? fsnotify+0x1eb/0x217 [2.508162] [811ef9d7] ? selinux_file_permission+0x57/0xb3 [2.508893] [811e7c72] ? security_file_permission+0x2e/0x33 [2.509642] [811211ea] ? rw_verify_area+0xb0/0xcd [2.510299] [81121475] ? vfs_write+0xac/0xf3 [2.510871] [81121664] ? sys_write+0x4a/0x6e [2.511509] [81b59fc6] ? do_copy+0x73/0x8e [2.512078] [81b59718] ? flush_buffer+0x77/0xa4 [2.512696] [81b596a1] ? flush_buffer+0x0/0xa4 [2.513407] [81b84a51] ? nofill+0x0/0x9 [2.513933] [81b84cba] ? gunzip+0x260/0x306 [2.514536] [81b59cb0] ? unpack_to_rootfs+0x175/0x286 [2.515228] [81b5966e] ? error+0x0/0x17 [2.515756] [81b5a49d] ? populate_rootfs+0x0/0xce [2.516408] [81b5a4f4] ? populate_rootfs+0x57/0xce [2.517065] [810020a4] ? do_one_initcall+0x7f/0x137 [2.517716] [81b57e88] ? kernel_init+0x228/0x2a2 [2.518374] [8100a9e4] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [2.519056] [81b57c60] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x2a2 [2.519661] [8100a9e0] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10 [2.520353] Mem-Info: [2.520614] Node 0 DMA per-cpu: [2.520983] CPU0: hi:0, btch: 1 usd: 0 [2.521611] Node 0 DMA32 per-cpu: [2.521994] CPU0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 14 [2.522562] active_anon:0 inactive_anon:0 isolated_anon:0 [2.522563] active_file:0 inactive_file:1 isolated_file:0 [2.522563] unevictable:82084 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 [2.522564] free:2 slab_reclaimable:4556 slab_unreclaimable:1502 [2.522565] mapped:0 shmem:0 pagetables:0 bounce:0 [2.525643] Node 0 DMA free:8kB min:0kB low:0kB high:0kB active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:15648kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15676kB mlocked:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:224kB slab_unreclaimable:20kB kernel_stack:0kB pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:3912 all_unreclaimable? no [2.529670] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0 [2.530174] Node 0 DMA32 free:0kB min:0kB low:0kB high:0kB active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:4kB unevictable:312688kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:500948kB mlocked:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:18000kB slab_unreclaimable:5988kB kernel_stack:160kB pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:78172 all_unreclaimable? no [2.534318] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0 [2.534799] Node 0 DMA: 2*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: Why? So users can scroll back to see this helpful stuff and try to decipher what it means? I guess you have a point --- perhaps F15 and Natty 11.04 Alpha 2 have it right --- this afternoon, Natty bombed out with a message to the effect A bad problem happened and I can't report it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
Hi http://anonbadger.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/need-more-memory/ Why does Anaconda need more memory? Such changes really need to be coordinated and documented better. We need changes in several documentation including installation guide and release notes not to mention changes in the default RAM allocation in virt-manager and so on. Can someone in the Anaconda team provide the details please. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Increased Anaconda memory requirements?
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 10:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi http://anonbadger.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/need-more-memory/ Why does Anaconda need more memory? Such changes really need to be coordinated and documented better. We need changes in several documentation including installation guide and release notes not to mention changes in the default RAM allocation in virt-manager and so on. Can someone in the Anaconda team provide the details please. AFAIK it's more or less a bug. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
