[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: non-standard TCP tunings in EC2 images



On 25/07/16 at 16:32 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 12:03 PM, gustavo panizzo (gfa) wrote:
> > I don't mind if there is a task/metapkg called "EC2-optimal",
> > "OpenStack-Optimized", whatever. but the default image on each cloud
> > provider should be as close as possible to debian installed from d-i.
> 
> We've discussed that during the cloud-BoF in Cape Town, and that's not
> what I heard. For example, I asked about having "nano", which comes by
> default if using d-i. It is my view it should be there. The same way, a
> few utilities are helpful in the cloud context, for example GNU-screen.
> To this date, I have gathered no consensus. The only one that I found is
> that we could do a minimal and a "full" cloud image, which probably we
> could do, but IMO, everyone has a different idea of what the "full"
> image should look like.

On 25/07/16 at 10:42 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In fact, I think there was a consensus in the room in Cape Town that we
> very much did not want something as close to what d-i produces, but
> instead wanted something that  was minimal.
 
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned during the BOF: I think that the
correct way to solve the problem of "what to put into the image" would be to
rely on packages Priority: fields.

By default, debootstrap creates a chroot with everything Priority: important
and higher. If you add the kernel, ssh and cloud-init, you get what could
probably be a "minimal" installation. (that includes nano, FYI)

The main benefit of relying solely on priorities is that, if they are wrong, we
can fix it and improve Debian as a whole.

Lucas


Reply to: