Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Comment 3RHEL Program Management
2014-06-06 05:47:08 UTC
This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
I would just like to note that being able to use smaller flavours (which is not possible when the disk image is larger than the flavour defines) means the cloud-customer will have to pay more money for the cloud services because he is using larger flavours.
What's the lowest size that makes sense to you? RHEVM appears to be capable of extending the disk as of 3.3 in the vm's disk properties. I'd like to keep it around 2-4GB to save the hassle for folks just downloading the qcow and using it in a virt-manager/vanilla kvm environment.
I thought that we decided a rootfs size of 15GB was what we were going for and what we did in RHEL 6.
Expanding the rootfs size from 4GB to 15GB does increase the size of the resulting qcow2, but only by a relatively nominal amount.
I think he's concerned about customers being billed for larger instances(small/large) where tiny would work if the disk was small enough. If the disk is imported into openstack with a lower minimum requirement would that still work correctly?
I don't think we have a strong requirement to support Tiny instances for RHEL. If 15GB will fit into Small, then I think we are good. As long as we aren't forcing people to move to Medium or Large.
For reference, how big is the filesystem on the EC2 AMIs?
AFAIR, Tiny in OpenStack is only 1GB. I seriously doubt we can realistically squeeze our images into a 1GB rootfs and have them be useful at all.
Small by default (next step up from Tiny) is 20GB. Right now we have 15GB. I think that's a good size to stick with.