Open Stack

I have no strong feelings about keeping zero_empty.sh, but personally I
would find the suggestion more compelling if it was not based on "it may
take hours" and "I strongly believe".

How about some hard data on actual benefits and costs of zero_empty.sh?

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:09:33 +0200, Pranav Salunke wrote:
>    1. Time required to create base disk is increased (zeroing out takes
>    some time)

Indeed.

>    2. Disk space used is the max. size of the disk - makes thin
>    provisioning pointless. Thin provisioning of the disks is really useful and
>    should be considered.

So in practical terms, what could we do that we cannot do right now?

>    3. Increasing the disk space will significantly increase the time taken
>    for creating the base-disk and hence it may take hours for a cluster having
>    50+GB disk size.

That's not likely to be the default anytime soon, and if somebody wants
to build a large cluster, they can always comment the script out.

>    4. Increase in the services and increasing demand to run heavier and
>    more useful images apart from Cirros image makes this important point to
>    consider.

Okay, that's really still point 3.

> I strongly believe that the loss in compression would be insignificant as
> compared to the other benefits. I would like to hear from our team about
> this.

As I said, I don't care much either way. But I would like us to make
informed decisions, or at least be honest about it if we are acting based
on a hunch :-).

Roger