release ebs boot amis?

Bug #582014 reported by Greg Coit on 2010-05-17
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
DEPRECATED Pantheon
New
Wishlist
Greg Coit

Bug Description

Do we decide to release instance boot and/or EBS boot AMIs?

So far, we've been developing instance boot AMIs. I would argue, however, that we should release both instance boot and EBS boot AMIs.

The work to implement instance boot AMIs is done. However, Amazon's EBS boot system is much more similar to other VPS (and should maybe be considered the default release rather than instance boot). I believe the following steps will create a successful EBS boot AMI:

edit the Mercury init files to use /mnt only on instance boot AMIs and not EBS boot AMIs.

Thoughts?

Josh Koenig (joshkoenig) wrote :

I'm open to this, but it's a bigger commitment of time/energy to make EBS and instance AMIs for every release for every region...

Greg Coit (gregcoit) wrote :

Turns out that EBS boot AMIs are more similar to instance boot AMIs than I thought (The one difference being 5 more GB on the root partition and a non-volatile /mnt):

small instance boot:
/ is 10G
/mnt is 150G

large instance boot:
/ is 10G
/mnt is 420G

small ebs boot:
/ is 15G
/mnt is 150G

large ebs boot:
/ is 15G
/mnt is 420G

So, I think we'll want to use the AWS mercury with no changes on both the instance and EBS boot images.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers