iB::Topic::Frugal Install + extensions = too much ram used

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » HD Install » Frugal Install + extensions = too much ram used

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (4) </ 1 2 [3] 4 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Frugal Install + extensions = too much ram used, I need to free up some of that ram.

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

Juanito

Group: Members
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Jan. 27 2008,04:05

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.

curaga

Group: Members
Posts: 2163
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Jan. 27 2008,05:58

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.

--------------
There's no such thing as life. Those mean little jocks invented it ;)
-
Windows is not a virus. A virus does something!

andrewb

Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: July 2005

Posted: Feb. 04 2008,22:52

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.

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: Feb. 04 2008,23:52

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.

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

andrewb

Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: July 2005

Posted: Feb. 05 2008,00:41

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.

19 replies since Jan. 26 2008,05:56

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (4) </ 1 2 [3] 4 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » HD Install » Frugal Install + extensions = too much ram used