IoT February 2020

iot@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
13 discussions

systemd-zram generator
by Chris Murphy 30 May '20

30 May '20

Hi, This is a systemd generator for setting up swap on zram. If a configuration file, /etc/systemd/zram-generator.conf, does not exist, nothing happens. If it does exist, a zram device is created, swap-create(a)zram0.service is created and started, which does mkswap and swapon using the same systemd logic found with either GPT swap autodiscovery (using partition type GUID) and /dev/urandom based swap. https://github.com/systemd/zram-generator This has been packaged in Fedora as 'zram-generator'. While zram package works fine and I see no problems with it, I'm liking the idea of converging on zram-generator, to use existing logic, maintenance and bug fixing. It's also an example of a generator made in Rust. I've found a few issues, reported upstream, but I don't think any of them negatively impact IoT. https://github.com/systemd/zram-generator/issues There's maybe a 50/50 chance we'll get this going in Workstation for Fedora 32 in lieu of a conventional swap partition (pretty much what IoT has been doing from the start, correct?). But I expect to propose it as a system-wide change for Fedora 33. The idea is to make the generator available system wide; and then we can discuss whether to: 1. enable it by default, by including a one size fits all configuration; which any edition/spin can opt-out by either deleting the configuration file or substituting it with their own 2. not enable it by default, by not including a configuration file; which any edition/spin can opt-in by including their own configuration file 3. what might possibly make sense as the most universal on size fits all configuration Based on the anaconda zram setup; the zram package setup; brief discussion upstream, and my own testing, I've arrived at: Create a zram device the same size as RAM (i.e. 1:1 ratio), with a cap of 2G or 4G. The rationale is, upstream says a zram device twice that of RAM is sane because expected compression ratio is 2:1. But going above that really makes no sense. Therefore a 1:1 ratio is conservative enough, but it's also reasonable to go with 1:2 (1/2 that of RAM, for the zram device size), depending on what IoT folks experience has been thus far. The ratio will affect small RAM devices more then workstations and servers, which I expect will pretty much always be subject to the cap. But if this isn't what upstream zram folks want to do, then it's not a big deal to just have a use case specific configuration files.

2 3

Revamping the Release Readiness meeting
by Ben Cotton 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

(Posting to many mailing lists for visibility. I apologize if you see this more times than you'd like.) You may have already seen my Community Blog post[1] about changing the Release Readiness meeting process. The meeting has questionable value in the current state, so I want to make it more useful. We'll do this by having teams self-report readiness issues on a dedicated wiki page[2] beginning now. This gives the community time to chip in and help with areas that need help without waiting until days before the release. I invite teams to identify a representative to keep the wiki page up to date. Update it as your status changes and I'll post help requests in my weekly CommBlog posts[3] and the FPgM office hours[4] IRC meeting. The Release Readiness meeting will be shortened to one hour and will review open concerns instead of polling for teams that may or may not be there. We will use the logistics mailing list[5] to discuss issues and make announcements, so I encourage representatives to join this list. [1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-program-update-2020-08/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Readiness [3] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/category/program-management/ [4] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/council/#m9570 -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

1 1

IoT naming plan
by Ben Cotton 03 Mar '20

03 Mar '20

As discussed in yesterday's meeting, here's a draft plan for naming the IoT edition. Note that this gives Legal a fairly short window to vet and approve our final names, so I've also prepared a compressed version (that's still a short window for Legal, but slightly less short). Either way, we should come to agreement quickly and I'll post the wiki page first thing Monday (my) morning. I'm open to other suggestions (e.g. a shorter name suggestion window), but we do need to move quickly. ## Schedule 1 2 March: Begin collecting name suggestions on the wiki page (bcotton to create) 16 March: End name collection, IoT team removes obvious bad candidates 20 March: bcotton sets up an election in the Elections app (open to all contributors with CLA+1) 23-30 March: voting period for naming 31 March: top 3 names sent to Red Hat Legal for final vetting ## Schedule 2 (compressed) 2 March: Begin collecting name suggestions on the wiki page (bcotton to create) 16 March: End name collection, IoT team removes obvious bad candidates 17 March: bcotton sets up an election in the Elections app (open to all contributors with CLA+1) 18-25 March: voting period for naming 26 March: top 3 names sent to Red Hat Legal for final vetting -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

6 7

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : IoT Working Group weekly meeting
by pbrobinson＠fedoraproject.org 25 Feb '20

25 Feb '20

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: IoT Working Group weekly meeting on 2020-02-26 from 14:00:00 to 15:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Fedora IoT weekly status meeting. More information available at: [https://pagure.io/fedora-iot/](https://pagure.io/fedora-iot/) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/9244/

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : IoT Working Group weekly meeting
by pbrobinson＠fedoraproject.org 25 Feb '20

25 Feb '20

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : IoT Working Group weekly meeting
by pbrobinson＠fedoraproject.org 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: IoT Working Group weekly meeting on 2020-02-19 from 14:00:00 to 15:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Fedora IoT weekly status meeting. More information available at: [https://pagure.io/fedora-iot/](https://pagure.io/fedora-iot/) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/9244/

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : IoT Working Group weekly meeting
by pbrobinson＠fedoraproject.org 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

1 0

F-32 branching heads up
by Peter Robinson 17 Feb '20

17 Feb '20

Hi All, For those currently using rawhide and wishing to stay on F-32 just a reminder that before Friday we'll be branching IoT off just like the main Fedora is in the process of doing. I'm currently awaiting mainline to settle but it'll happen soon. For those that wish to stay on rawhide you don't need to do anything and on the next compose you'll get F-33 content. For those that wish to stay on F-32 once the branch is complete (I'll reply to this email) you just need to run: sudo rpm-ostree rebase -b fedora/devel/<ARCH>/iot Will update shortly. Peter

1 1

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : IoT Working Group weekly meeting
by pbrobinson＠fedoraproject.org 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: IoT Working Group weekly meeting on 2020-02-12 from 14:00:00 to 15:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Fedora IoT weekly status meeting. More information available at: [https://pagure.io/fedora-iot/](https://pagure.io/fedora-iot/) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/9244/

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : IoT Working Group weekly meeting
by pbrobinson＠fedoraproject.org 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

IoT February 2020