[CentOS-devel] Disk size on Vagrant image
marcin.dulak at gmail.com
Tue Sep 12 19:33:13 UTC 2017
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Jeff Sheltren <jeff at tag1consulting.com>
> Hi Laurentiu, have you had a chance to look at the xfs issue around
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Laurentiu Pancescu <
> lpancescu at centosproject.org> wrote:
>> 2) Is there a strong reason to use xfs instead of ext4 on the Vagrant VMs?
>> "Strong" is somewhat subjective, but XFS is the default filesystem in
>> CentOS and some people ran out of inodes with our ext4 Vagrant images,
>> without running out of space. I wanted to go back to ext4 (with a small
>> bytes-per-inode parameter) and get rid of the swap partition, like Fedora
>> Cloud, but there was quite enthusiastic opposition in #centos-devel to
>> moving away from XFS.
> Anyone reading this thread opposed to using ext4 on the Vagrant images and
> care to share your concerns? From my perspective, the entire purpose of
> Vagrant is to provide a (reproducible) development environment for
> application developers that shouldn't be concerned with the filesystem in
> use outside of some edge cases. If ext4 gives an easier way to shrink the
> image size, and it sounds like it does, why not use that by default here?
>> 3) It seems you could shrink down the install size by adjusting the
>>> kickstart. Doing i.e. '%packages --nobase', and also removing '@core' and
>>> instead adding just the individual desired packages to the list should
>>> reduce the size (and the need to remove stuff after install).
>> I know, but... Our official images are quite popular and users seem to
>> prefer an experience close to what you'd get by installing CentOS yourself,
>> so we tend to err on the side of not changing things and not straying too
>> far away from users' expectations. We're still using an IDE controller for
>> the VirtualBox images, even though the VirtualBox docs recommend using SATA
>> or SCSI for performance reasons, again due to vocal opposition to changing
>> the (bad) defaults - mostly from Marcin.
I'm not opposing changes to the controllers, only the random behavior of
the centos/7 image depending on the version of virtualbox:
> Is it possible and worth creating a "7-minimal" vagrant image in addition
> to the default one currently built? For my needs, minimal (with a larger
> partition!) would be perfect because I just want a small, standard CentOS
> image that can then be configured with whatever config management system to
> prep it for development.
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS-devel