Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use a smaller source ISO to reduce build time #564

Open
bdunne opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Use a smaller source ISO to reduce build time #564

bdunne opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bdunne
Copy link
Member

bdunne commented Feb 21, 2024

Based on: #563 (comment)

Imagefactory/oz extract, modify and reassemble the source ISO for each appliance image that we build. The full CentOS Stream 9 ISO is 9+GB now. It's a ton of disk I/O that takes 10-20 minutes per appliance image on our current build machine. The only meaningful changes are inserting the ks.cfg and modifying the kernel cmdline.

To make matters worse, our kickstart file doesn't even leverage the RPM repos in the ISO.

I tried switching to the much smaller boot ISO, but it didn't work and I didn't have time to investigate right now. I think there are no repos on the ISO but anaconda is looking for something with the current kernel cmdline.

If we can't switch to the boot ISO, maybe we can build our own with empty (or almost empty) repos to reduce the disk size. and reduce the time consuming I/O.

@Fryguy
Copy link
Member

Fryguy commented Feb 22, 2024

Can we pre-modify the ISO to avoid imagefactory/oz from doing the extract, modify and reassemble? Or will it do all that regardless of the pre-modification? I wouldn't even mind manually pre-modifying them for each target appliance image if there are differences.

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jun 3, 2024

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been updated for at least 3 months.

If you can still reproduce this issue on the current release or on master, please reply with all of the information you have about it in order to keep the issue open.

@bdunne bdunne removed the stale label Jun 3, 2024
@miq-bot miq-bot added the stale label Sep 9, 2024
@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Sep 9, 2024

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been updated for at least 3 months.

If you can still reproduce this issue on the current release or on master, please reply with all of the information you have about it in order to keep the issue open.

@bdunne bdunne removed the stale label Sep 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants