8MB of system memory - need to circumvent ramdisk
Forum: HD Install
Topic: 8MB of system memory - need to circumvent ramdisk
started by: jgombos
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 09 2006,17:39
My current project is to run linux on a 486 with 8MB RAM.I had no expectation that the live CD would work, particularly when there's documentation somewhere saying the requirement is 16MB. But I tried it anyway. The lowram cheatcode got me to the point where it seemed to be creating a ramdisk, then froze. So I tried the super-lowram cheatcode: dsl 1 vga=normal atapicd noideraid nosound noapic noacpi acpi=off noscsi noapm nousb nopcmcia nofirewire noagp nomce. That cheatcode failed immediately. The first line of output was "Uncompressing linux... Ok, booting the kernel," then it froze.
Running any kind of LiveCD is clearly out of the question. I believe my only hope of running DSL on this machine is to do a hard drive install. There is < no documentation > for the frugal install. Once I < create a boot floppy >, what then? Should I create an ext2 partition, and copy the /KNOPPIX folder to it? Will this approach circumvent the need for a ramdisk?
Posted by Ramik on Nov. 09 2006,20:15
What are you planning to use the system for ?
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 09 2006,20:50
| Quote (Ramik @ Nov. 09 2006,15:15) |
| What are you planning to use the system for ? |
Nothing in particular. I just want it to do something useful, like email, so that I possibly give it away rather than throw it away. The more things I can make it do, the better. The goal is to keep it alive (and to learn how to make other old machines useful so they can be given away to someone on www.freecycle.org).
Posted by u2musicmike on Nov. 09 2006,21:28
I think you need a swap file. You might use a bootdisk like < tomsrtbt > to use fdisk for making a linux swap partition on your harddrive. Also, there might be something in the Wiki about using DOS swap files. If you can boot up the CD with 8 Meg and a swap file it will probably run real slow. From my experience of the installations that I've done a regular harddrive install runs faster than a frugal install. The wiki has a little information for a harddrive install:
< http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki....rd_Disk >
I would modify these directions by first booting in text mode using "dsl 2". Installing from text mode uses less ram and you don't have to worry about typing sudo commands. 8 megs might be too small even with a swap file but I know DSL will work with 16 meg ram.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Nov. 09 2006,21:58
Wasn't it 16mb for X? (Do you need X?)See Local Startup Docs in the wiki for hd and frugal installs (use search for more info)
You could boot with "dsl install" for it to launch an install menu on startup.
Posted by ZoOp on Nov. 09 2006,22:40
Deli linux can do the trick. 8 MB is no joy with dsl which requires at least 32.yours
z
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Nov. 09 2006,22:50
32 is pretty much minimum for a frugal (without using lowram, etc.)Others have gotten 16mb to work - 8 may be pushing it but I don't know the limits of the traditional hd-install.
Posted by Ramik on Nov. 10 2006,05:22
Use Deli if you need X,Use FreeSco if your looking for router\print server\samba server\small http server\DNS\...
Posted by skaos on Nov. 10 2006,10:32
Another alternative with X-windows is < http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/baslinux/. >If you want to pursue with DSL you could take out the disk, install it as primary master in another pc (assuming it is primary master in your 8 MB box), install DSL and put the disk back.
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 14 2006,03:47
I may have set a record for the most resource deprived machine to run DSL. I installed it on the 486dx2-66 with 8MB ram by moving the HDD to a better machine for the installation, however, it runs in a degraded state when I put it back in the older machine. X fails, so it drops to a command prompt.I have tried DeLi linux, and the live CD failed to fully boot (like DSL), and I gave up on it. It may be worth a shot to try the same approach on DeLi that worked for DSL. Though I'm not sure what could be more lean than Xvesa for an Xserver.
I looked at the requirements for BasicLinux, and found it surprizing that the native linux installation requires 12 MB of ram, while the version that runs as a layer on top of DOS requires less memory (3MB).
FreeBSD could be promising. Version 2.2.9 < runs on 8MB of RAM >.
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 14 2006,04:18
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Nov. 09 2006,16:58) |
| Wasn't it 16mb for X? (Do you need X?) |
I was speculating that the 16MB requirement was due to the ramdisk.. it very well could be more related to X. In fact I think my tests just proved that it's for X. My HD install will run in text mode with 8MB of ram, but when I run Xvesa, the screen goes black, and the hard drive spins for a while, then it just hangs on the black screen.
Do I need X? Only if it's required in order to make the machine appealing enough for someone to use it. I personally will not use it; I just want to make it useful for someone. If it can browse the web, that will probably be adequite.
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Nov. 09 2006,16:58) |
See Local Startup Docs in the wiki for hd and frugal installs (use search for more info) |
I tried the frugal install, and got a "missing operating system" error. I verified that the HDD actually contained something, and the partition was active, so I'm not sure why it was not bootable. I had to do a full install in order to get something that would boot.
Posted by kerry on Nov. 14 2006,06:41
Did you put a swap? I used swap to make up for lack of memory on a install. It's slower but it might get you to X.
Posted by skaos on Nov. 14 2006,10:53
| Quote |
| I looked at the requirements for BasicLinux, and found it surprizing that the native linux installation requires 12 MB of ram, while the version that runs as a layer on top of DOS requires less memory (3MB). |
The 12 MB requirement is when using a ramdisk (like DSL's toram option) and 3 MB is for a more "normal" linux installation. And I think you need 8 MB for X.
| Quote |
| If it can browse the web, that will probably be adequite. |
In linux you can forget graphical browsing with only 8 MB - I guess you could do it by using the text based links or lynx browsers.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Nov. 14 2006,14:33
DSL frugal installation uses a ramdisk regardless - toram copies the entire 50mb DSL base to it... I wouldn't do that with <64mb of RAM.| Quote |
| I tried the frugal install, and got a "missing operating system" error. |
| Quote |
| In linux you can forget graphical browsing with only 8 MB - I guess you could do it by using the text based links or lynx browsers. |
And Deli Linux, etc. may be a better choice in this situation (afaik uses uclibc, etc.)
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 14 2006,19:57
| Quote (kerry @ Nov. 14 2006,01:41) |
| Did you put a swap? I used swap to make up for lack of memory on a install. It's slower but it might get you to X. |
I did not use (or need) a swap partition for the installation itself because that was done on a machine with 64MB of ram. I did create a swap partition before moving the HDD to the 486 with 8MB ram.
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 14 2006,19:59
| Quote (skaos @ Nov. 14 2006,05:53) | ||
The 12 MB requirement is when using a ramdisk (like DSL's toram option) and 3 MB is for a more "normal" linux installation. And I think you need 8 MB for X.
In linux you can forget graphical browsing with only 8 MB - I guess you could do it by using the text based links or lynx browsers. |
According to the website, the 3MB installation runs on top of DOS, which seems abnormal to me. I'm not sure what I'm missing.
If I can install X on 8MB, why would graphical browsing fail? If a web page has much more than 8MB of pictures, I could see how an insane amount of swapping could make it inconvenient. I suppose the only way to know for certain how often that would be is to set it up and try it.
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 14 2006,20:00
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Nov. 14 2006,09:33) |
| DSL frugal installation uses a ramdisk regardless - toram copies the entire 50mb DSL base to it... I wouldn't do that with <64mb of RAM. |
You wouldn't do what with <64MB, frugal install or full?
I guess the term "frugal" is a little misleading.. apparently it means frugal in terms of HDD space, but not in terms of memory. Is it safe to assume that the full install does not use a ramdisk?
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Nov. 14 2006,09:33) |
That's probably some bootloader issue... (ie not being installed properly) |
I followed the basically same process for the frugal install as I did for the full install, so I'm not sure why only the full install would be bootable for me. Anyway, it's no problem, because it's the full install that I want anyway (to avoid the ramdisk).
Posted by skaos on Nov. 15 2006,11:15
| Quote |
| According to the website, the 3MB installation runs on top of DOS, which seems abnormal to me. I'm not sure what I'm missing. |
I think it uses loadlin to launch linux from dos, i.e. removing all traces of dos from memory.
| Quote |
| If I can install X on 8MB, why would graphical browsing fail? |
Because the browser, like any software, needs memory for itself. It is some time since I used Dillo but I seem to remember that it uses about 10 MB.
Posted by jgombos on Nov. 20 2006,04:59
| Quote (skaos @ Nov. 15 2006,06:15) |
| I think it uses loadlin to launch linux from dos, i.e. removing all traces of dos from memory. |
Yup, that's correct, as I recently discovered. Loadlin is an interesting alternative to LiLo, Grub, and XOSL. It turns out loadlin and lilo both fail on my particular hardware, but I was able to install Basic Linux 3 ("BL3") along with XOSL, and it works quite well. BL3 was a good suggestion.
| Quote (skaos @ Nov. 15 2006,06:15) | ||
Because the browser, like any software, needs memory for itself. It is some time since I used Dillo but I seem to remember that it uses about 10 MB. |
As a test, I was able to run Win95 on this 486dx2-66 with 8MB RAM, and browse graphically. Because I expect more from linux (it should be leaner than anything M$ would produce), I also expect to be able to browse graphically with 8MB ram. I have not tested the theory yet, but I'm told that Links2 is a GUI browser for BL3 that will function satisfactorily (is that a word?) with 8MB ram.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Nov. 20 2006,14:21
| Quote |
| You wouldn't do what with <64MB, frugal install or full? |
I was referring to toram, since 64-50 would leave you with 14.
| Quote |
| I guess the term "frugal" is a little misleading.. apparently it means frugal in terms of HDD space, but not in terms of memory. Is it safe to assume that the full install does not use a ramdisk? |
| Quote |
| As a test, I was able to run Win95 on this 486dx2-66 with 8MB RAM, and browse graphically. Because I expect more from linux (it should be leaner than anything M$ would produce), I also expect to be able to browse graphically with 8MB ram. I have not tested the theory yet, but I'm told that Links2 is a GUI browser for BL3 that will function satisfactorily (is that a word?) with 8MB ram. |