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



Quote (andrewb @ Feb. 04 2008,19:41)
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.

That's true.. one would need a unionfs.uci (which looks possible...)
Quote
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.

I don't know why it would work any differently as an extension than it does now. Or did before it was included in the base. The difference is you should be able to benefit from 2.6-only improvements (iirc, 2.4 development has ceased).
http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub....sl.info
Now we have a catch 22! Unless unionfs can be created as a UCI loading it will either require the mkwriteable script to be run, or it needs to be a UNC. A UNC of course requires unionfs,......
Unless a readymade symlink for the module is done in /lib/modules to /opt/unionwhatever.
You can just insmod it... unless for some odd reason the module will be needed even after it has been loaded into memory?

EDIT: looks like it works (from quick memory)
- tested with 3.4.x
- boot with legacy
- remove unionctl and module
- run depmod and/or change modules.dep
- copy unionctl and module to a some dir*
- insmod and run mkunion
- mydsl-load something.unc and test it

*: for some reason, unionctl was not found even after symlinking from /opt/bin, so I just restored the original location

note: running mount shows unionfs on /ramdisk/foo instead of /KNOPPIX/foo
Next Page...
original here.