roberts
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3db3d/3db3d59337ccc8bc3ec15645b7ab368bce77b85a" alt="Offline"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7859d/7859df6fcda0ce042563c8ede99e2bc6758bbe0d" alt=""
Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd3a8/cd3a84c67c9ea531b591a3a8b33552269a04250f" alt="" |
Posted: June 01 2006,22:34 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6c44/d6c44952b272c7945ab6f79c02e4aece27e637ca" alt="QUOTE" |
clacker, I will try this setup. But... I am not happy with cp -rp /etc /ramdisk/holder/etc_copy That will use up alot of inodes which I was hoping to avoid.
If unionfs has the same or more impacts, via inode use, as mkwriteable then the benefits are much reduced from what I was hoping for.
I am planing for a more standard unionfs setup on dsl-n. But seeing what JB4X4 had posted earlier, I was hoping for an extremely minimal setup for dsl, ie., minimal inode/ramdisk use with no copying to ramdisk. This would really help the ultra low end machines which has always been our target. Maybe I am too optimistic
|