Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add option to disable swap creation #182

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

e9925248
Copy link
Contributor

There is currently no option to disable the creation of swap partitions.
While swap is necessary for some kinds of systems, swap can cause negative effects for other setups.

@@ -289,6 +300,10 @@ def GetControlCfg
tmp = ProductFeatures.GetFeature("partitioning", "proposal_snapshots")
Ops.set(@cfg_xml, "prop_snapshots", tmp == "" || tmp == true ? true : false)

# GetBooleanFeature cannot distinguish between missing and false
tmp = ProductFeatures.GetFeature("partitioning", "need_swap")
Ops.set(@cfg_xml, "need_swap", tmp == "" || tmp == true ? true : false)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: If you add support for a completely new option you need to define it in the schema file otherwise the control files will not validate.

@lslezak
Copy link
Member

lslezak commented Apr 3, 2017

Is there any feature or bugzilla bug which you could reference?

@shundhammer
Copy link
Contributor

IMHO this is a non-feature: Only product creators who write control.xml files might even theoretically benefit from this, if at all. I don't recall a feature request or bug report requesting anything like this.

And even then, this would only affect the automatic storage proposal which the user can always override. While some users might find it beneficial to have no swap at all (which is a disputed topic to say the least), most users will defer to the expertise of the distribution maker, which is us, and just accept the storage proposal.

I don't see any scenario where this patch would be useful. If one of our distribution media makers (who are the people who create the control.xml file) wanted this, this would be another matter; but this is not useful at all for the outside world. This would just introduce more complexity to test against and to maintain.

I vote for not accepting this change.

@e9925248
Copy link
Contributor Author

e9925248 commented Apr 5, 2017

There is no bug report/feature request.

It was written for https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:e9925248:grandorgue/GOtoGO - A Live CD including the Live installer just to run one program.

Suspend/resume is not of interest, so swap is not necessary for this.

My users try to stuff as much as possible and the program needs to keep all data fast accessible in RAM, because delays caused by swap-in from slow disks cause audio issues.

So the CD needs to present the user a proposal without swap.

@shundhammer
Copy link
Contributor

You might want to consider tuning the swappiness rather than completely removing the option to have swap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swappiness

Not having swap space at all is not desirable in the general case IMHO.

@lslezak
Copy link
Member

lslezak commented Apr 7, 2017

My users try to stuff as much as possible and the program needs to keep all data fast accessible in RAM

But having no swap means that instead of seeing delays the kernel will kill some processes and users will see random crashes. And that's worse IMHO.

Stefan is right, if you want to minimize swapping fine tune the swappiness kernel parameter instead of not having swap at all. This will handle the critical situations better.

Please also note that the YaST live installer has been dropped and is not supported anymore. (The openSUSE Tumbleweed Live medium runs the full installation, just like normal installation media.)

@lslezak lslezak closed this Apr 7, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants