kernel-packages team mailing list archive
-
kernel-packages team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #101659
[Bug 1415634] [NEW] RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
Public bug reported:
We currently build 2 meta packages for easy consumption and automatic
kernel upgrades. These are linux-virtual and linux-generic.
The -virtual meta package was created with the general purpose of
"support virtual environments", and then extended to include "and common
cloud workloads" (adding things like rdb and kvm).
Would it be possible to find a happy medium where we had enough drivers
to enable network and block devices and essential server devices but
maintained a reasonable install size ? That would enable us to create
one set of images for use in cloud enviroments be they on bare metal or
hypervisors.
As an example of sizes collected from a cloud image, we have:
release | kernel | apt inst| initrd | /lib/modules
vivid | linux-virtual | 125M | 8M | 34M
vivid | linux-generic | 358M | 27M | 193M
trusty | linux-virtual | 119M | 7M | 31M
trusty | linux-generic | 337M | 24M | 184M
'apt inst' is as reported by apt install after 'apt-get --purge ^linux-.*'
vivid version 3.18.0.11, trusty version 3.13.0.44.51.
both packages share the linux kernel binary which in this case is 5.6M on trusty and 6.3M on vivid.
For a cloud image with default install in the 700M range, the difference
between -virtual and -generic is considerable. So it clearly has its
value.
However, this value comes at the cost of specialization. If a user
installs a server via MAAS or via ISO, they get linux-generic and have
some set of modules/kernel function. If they run a cloud image, they
have a different set. This is less than desireable as we'd like to say
that both cases are "Ubuntu Server". It also means that we have to
build "maas images" which are primarily "cloud images with a hardware
kernel".
** Affects: linux (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1415634
Title:
RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
Status in linux package in Ubuntu:
New
Bug description:
We currently build 2 meta packages for easy consumption and automatic
kernel upgrades. These are linux-virtual and linux-generic.
The -virtual meta package was created with the general purpose of
"support virtual environments", and then extended to include "and
common cloud workloads" (adding things like rdb and kvm).
Would it be possible to find a happy medium where we had enough
drivers to enable network and block devices and essential server
devices but maintained a reasonable install size ? That would enable
us to create one set of images for use in cloud enviroments be they on
bare metal or hypervisors.
As an example of sizes collected from a cloud image, we have:
release | kernel | apt inst| initrd | /lib/modules
vivid | linux-virtual | 125M | 8M | 34M
vivid | linux-generic | 358M | 27M | 193M
trusty | linux-virtual | 119M | 7M | 31M
trusty | linux-generic | 337M | 24M | 184M
'apt inst' is as reported by apt install after 'apt-get --purge ^linux-.*'
vivid version 3.18.0.11, trusty version 3.13.0.44.51.
both packages share the linux kernel binary which in this case is 5.6M on trusty and 6.3M on vivid.
For a cloud image with default install in the 700M range, the
difference between -virtual and -generic is considerable. So it
clearly has its value.
However, this value comes at the cost of specialization. If a user
installs a server via MAAS or via ISO, they get linux-generic and have
some set of modules/kernel function. If they run a cloud image, they
have a different set. This is less than desireable as we'd like to
say that both cases are "Ubuntu Server". It also means that we have
to build "maas images" which are primarily "cloud images with a
hardware kernel".
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1415634/+subscriptions
Follow ups
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Scott Moser, 2015-04-19
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Scott Moser, 2015-03-31
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Andy Whitcroft, 2015-03-02
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Joseph Salisbury, 2015-02-10
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Joseph Salisbury, 2015-01-29
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Joseph Salisbury, 2015-01-28
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Andy Whitcroft, 2015-01-28
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Patricia Gaughen, 2015-01-28
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Scott Moser, 2015-01-28
-
[Bug 1415634] Re: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Patricia Gaughen, 2015-01-28
-
[Bug 1415634] Missing required logs.
From: Brad Figg, 2015-01-28
-
[Bug 1415634] [NEW] RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages
From: Scott Moser, 2015-01-28
References