HD Install :: Frugal Install + extensions = too much ram used

The uci type extension is probably best - it installs to /opt so it does not disturb the base dsl system, it hardly uses any ram and it can be unloaded cleanly from the system once you have finished with it.

The key difference between uci and tar.gz is, that if you have a persistent opt set up, you can install tar.gz extensions permanently and not have them load up every boot, like ucis. This has a minor speedup, bigger on older computers.

The only part where having an unc over uci/tar.gz is a compiling extension, because then you don't have to enter some variables, or gnu-utils, because some programs hardcode for example less to /bin/less and expect it to be there.

For low RAM systems (I run with 64MB - maximium possible!) stick to UCI extensions where possible as explained by juanito, but the UNC extension is the only way to go for extensions that require write access to files contained in the extension or need to place files in the read-only areas of the filesystem (i.e. anything that would otherwise be a .dsl extension). I use samba, gtk2, gnumeric, gnu-utils as the UNC versions & still some RAM left & a usable system. If the extension you want isn't available as a UNC there is a DSL2UNC script around on the forums that will do the conversion for you. If you use this script also use the declobber script at the same time, just in case there are any unwanted empty directories still lurking in the original .dsl extension.

Roberts has hinted at removing unionfs due to problems with stability. I would hate to see this as it is only since unionfs was included that I have been able to rely on DSL on this low RAM system. Since unionfs was added I have rarely had to resort to the WIN98 installation still remaining on the machine (one of the big problems was Excel files - I needed Gnumeric for that). .dsl extensions are a no-no for low-RAM systems as they have to copy large chunks of the filesystem to RAM in order for them to be writable (the dreaded mkwritable script - run it & see how much RAM you have left then after using a few extensions!). To maintain the goal of supporting older hardware the use of some form of overlay filesystem looks like a pre-requisite for DSL.

Quote

Roberts has hinted at removing unionfs due to problems with stability. I would hate to see this as it is only since unionfs was included that I have been able to rely on DSL on this low RAM system.

Even if it's not included in the next base, it will likely be available as an extension for those who either need or choose to use it.

Quote (lucky13 @ Feb. 04 2008,08:52)

Even if it's not included in the next base, it will likely be available as an extension for those who either need or choose to use it.

I don't understand the inner workings of the overlay filesystems, but would such an extension not require write access to some of the core areas? This would negate the usefulness of such an extension on low-RAM systems - the very are a where it is most useful.

Next Page...
original here.