836361 – Recommended partitioning scheme is not clear for edge cases

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.

Bug 836361 - Recommended partitioning scheme is not clear for edge cases

Summary: Recommended partitioning scheme is not clear for edge cases

Keywords:
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias:	None
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification:	Red Hat
Component:	doc-Installation_Guide
Sub Component:
Version:	6.3
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Priority:	unspecified
Severity:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Assignee:	Jack Reed
QA Contact:	ecs-bugs
Docs Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+	depends on / blocked

Reported:	2012-06-28 20:06 UTC by Giovanni Tirloni
Modified:	2013-06-17 05:58 UTC (History)
CC List:	3 users (show)
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-02-25 23:47:35 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments	(Terms of Use)

Description Giovanni Tirloni 2012-06-28 20:06:54 UTC

Description of problem:

"Installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 for all architectures Edition 1.0"

http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installation_Guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86.html

The table which details the recommended partitioning scheme is not clear about edge cases like 2GB, 8GB and 64GB of RAM.

If I have 8GB of RAM, which rule will it match? That is not clear. Think about mathematical notation for limits (>, >=, <=, etc). 

We've had to actually build a machine with 8GB and check what Anaconda would set for the "swap --hibernation" option.

Comment 1 Giovanni Tirloni 2012-06-28 20:08:05 UTC

To make it clear, the amounts of RAM specified in the table overlap.

Comment 3 Jack Reed 2012-08-21 06:41:23 UTC

Vratislav, what would you recommend for such edge cases when the swap space is set manually to allow for hibernation? Use the higher or lower recommendation? Or would either suffice? 

Changing the ranges in the table to more incremental figures would be unwieldy; I expect a note above the table with the answer to my earlier question should sufficiently address this ambiguity.

Comment 4 Vratislav Podzimek 2012-08-21 09:21:21 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> Vratislav, what would you recommend for such edge cases when the swap space
> is set manually to allow for hibernation? Use the higher or lower
> recommendation? Or would either suffice?
The code in the installer uses the intervals as:

mem < 2 GB
2 GB <= mem < 8 GB
8 GB <= mem < 64 GB
mem >= 64GB

but the right value (for manual setting) depends on the load of the system. Obviously using bigger swap is safer (for hibernation), but wasting space.

Comment 5 Jack Reed 2012-08-27 03:40:05 UTC

Thanks for reporting this, Giovanni. I've made a few improvements to make this clearer.

Firstly, I've updated 'Table 9.2. Recommended Swap Space' to eliminate the overlaps. For example, 2GB-8GB of RAM has been replaced with > 2GB - 8GB, which is followed by > 8GB - 64GB. This clarifies which recommendations should be implemented for 2GB, 8GB, and 64GB of RAM.

Secondly, to account for Vratislav's suggestion that having more swap space is safer in edge cases, I have added the following paragraph beneath the table: 

"At the border between each range listed above (for example, a system with 2GB, 8GB, or 64GB of system RAM) discretion can be exercised with regard to chosen swap space and hibernation support. If your system resources allow for it, increasing the swap space may lead to better performance."

I hope that resolves the ambiguity. These changes will be available in the 6.4 edition of the Guide.

Comment 11 Jack Reed 2013-02-25 23:47:35 UTC

This bug has been verified and implemented for 6.4, so I am changing the status to CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.