-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 12:58 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2020 12:39:05 PM MST Igor Raits wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 12:19 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 5, 2020 12:16:36 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:10 PM John M. Harris Jr <
> > > johnmh(a)splentity.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, June 5, 2020 12:03:03 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > In discussions with both cloud and server folks, their use
> > > > > cases often
> > > > > do not even create disk-based swap at all. A small swap-on-
> > > > > zram
> > > > > provides all the benefits of inactive anonymous page
> > > > > eviction,
> > > > > including reducing reclaim of file pages, without the black
> > > > > hole
> > > > > performance problems of swap-on-drive.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So yes it's well suited for these cases and the proposal
> > > > > does
> > > > > include
> > > > > them. If they wish to be left out, that's up to those
> > > > > working
> > > > > groups.
> > > > > It's possible to make sure /etc/systemd/zram-generator is
> > > > > not
> > > > > present.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't seem to reflect reality. If you download the
> > > > Server
> > > > image
> > > > right now, and go with its automatic partitioning scheme
> > > > generation,
> > > > it'll give you a swap partition on LVM. This is correct for
> > > > most
> > > > servers,
> > > > not necessarily the LVM part, but having swap on disk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The proposal recommends changing this. Cloud and Server folks
> > > will
> > > decide what's best for their use cases, not me.
> >
> >
> >
> > In that case, would you be open to changing this proposal to only
> > affect
> > Workstation?
>
>
> I think it is fine to have the proposal as it is. Those groups will
> chime in if they do not like this approach. Having things
> consistent
> across editions (in this regard) makes more sense to me tbh.
What makes sense for desktops doesn't necessarily make sense for
servers, or
other environments. Fedora isn't just a desktop distro. Additionally,
what
GNOME folks believe to be best is normally not the best for other
desktop
environments.
Can you be more specific about potential problems you see in other use-
cases like server?
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org - --
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=bmkv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----