1

Project Atomic writes:

Atomic Host is a lightweight, ...

How lightweight in terms of disk space usage is release 25 of Fedora Atomic X86_64?

3

Installing Fedora-Atomic-ostree-x86_64-25-20161221.0 in a BIOS (not EFI) boot virtual machine lists:

Installation requires a total of 596 MiB for system data.

Project Atomic - Installation requires a total of 596 MiB for system data.

After installation completion the disk consumption according to df is different.

Used (1MB-blocks) 
1279 MB in /sysroot
  79 MB in /boot
  • 2
    We're working on getting this down. Since we're building Atomic from an existing distribution, there's a huge amount of flexibility and power available. However, over the past decade as disk space became so cheap, minimization was never a priority. Now it is, so over the next few releases I expect this size to come down dramatically, as we a) move things which are now in the base to containers and b) detangle hard dependencies, replacing with soft ones or working around entirely. (Note: I work on Fedora, but this is my own expectation, not an official pronouncement.) – mattdm Jan 1 '17 at 16:26
  • @mattdm I hope that language support will be removed too. LANG=C is enough. Writing bug free software is near impossible. The reason for low disk space is not the cost of storage, but the reduction of attack surface. – Pro Backup Jan 1 '17 at 18:32
  • — we actually have C.UTF-8. But as an international project, we do want to have languages available where they'll be helpful. Ideally, we'll have a better mechanism for delivering language support separately as an add-on. – mattdm Jan 1 '17 at 18:38
  • Fedora Server 25 without any add-ons consumes less space according to df: 922 MB in /sysroot and 103 MB in /boot. – Pro Backup Jan 2 '17 at 14:28
  • 2
    I'm not super-surprised; since Atomic is "batteries included" for running containers, it includes things like Kubernetes which Server doesn't — and server has a mechanism for adding things not in containers, and Atomic doesn't. I'm going to talk to the marketing people about laying off the term "lightweight" and pushing "focused" and "tailored" more, until we actually have a more reduced footprint. – mattdm Jan 2 '17 at 14:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.