WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Tiny Mod version of Tiny Core.  (Read 3729 times)

Offline SunBurnt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Tiny Mod version of Tiny Core.
« on: August 24, 2011, 01:26:02 AM »
Got a modded version of Tiny Core booting to the desktop, wbar and all, but still no apps.

# I ran "free" on Tiny Mod and a stock running TC setup, here`s the data:
Tiny Mod had 42476 KB of ram used.
Tiny Core had 30944 KB of ram used.
===============================
Both had no ram swap (nozswap) and no apps (base) for boot arguments.
When I clean up unneeded dirs. in both ram and in the squash file, the two will be closer.

Then I checked my working install of TC and "free" showed 166212 KB of ram used.
That`s a difference of about ~ 130 MB in the ram used...
The working TC had Firefox, Mplayer, and Fluff installed on it, but should it be so much?
My hope is that the method I intend to use for the extension files will over come this.

The squash file in ram is just over 8 MB in size and will be about 8 MB when cleaned out.
The size of dirs. removed from ram is almost 17 MB, so about 8.5 MB more free ram.

# Specs:
The main Linux dirs. are divided between read-only, read-write, and read-write persistent.
The read-only dirs. are in a squash file: /bin, /lib, /sbin, /usr
The read-write are in / : /dev, /mnt, /opt, /proc, /sys, /tmp, /var
Persistent r-w are on a HD: /etc, /home, /root

In /usr several dirs. had to be replaced with links pointing to created duplicate dirs. in /opt

If it will have less ram usage, maybe a lot less, and a faster shutdown time, it`ll be worth it.
There`s bound to be other advantages to this setup also, but they`ll be proven eventually.

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10741
Re: Tiny Mod version of Tiny Core.
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2011, 06:25:07 AM »
- are the numbers correct? It looks like your mod uses _more_ ram
- in any case, if you want to use "free" numbers, did you call sync && sudo cache-clear first?
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline SunBurnt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: Tiny Mod version of Tiny Core.
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2011, 01:54:33 PM »
Yes, I ran it again today, the numbers are for a fresh boot of all 3 TC types tested.
Running "sync" and "sudo cache-clear" lowered the 2 bare test TCs by a few MB.

The working TC with apps. went from 166084 KB to 112416 KB. Still 70 MBs more.
Firefox put ram usage at 250000 KB and it stayed there until running the commands.

However... I don`t see that this is relevant, I and most folks don`t run those commands.
So the the "real" ram usage for most of us is just as stated.

Q: Seeing as the ram usage can be cut... Why not auto. run them when apps. exit?

Offline Rich

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10433
Re: Tiny Mod version of Tiny Core.
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2011, 04:52:07 PM »
Hi SunBurnt
Quote
However... I don`t see that this is relevant, I and most folks don`t run those commands.
So the the "real" ram usage for most of us is just as stated.
It's very relevant if you want to use  free  as a tool to measure the memory footprint of different
configurations without the cache obscuring the results.

Quote
Q: Seeing as the ram usage can be cut... Why not auto. run them when apps. exit?
A: With very few exceptions, as a general rule, you should not be running those commands. This
    happens to be one of those exceptions. For a little more insight please read:
    http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,9769.msg53362.html#msg53362

Offline SunBurnt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: Tiny Mod version of Tiny Core.
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2011, 07:00:45 PM »
Thanks Rich; I see that just because ram is used doesn`t mean it`s not free.
So these commands show just the ram that the OS`s use, and maybe the extensions too.

I`m still curious as to the 70 MB difference between the "base" TC and the working one.
Even after the cache is cleared the working one still uses twice the ram of the "base" one.
Apparently the extensions take a toll on ram in some way. Dependencies are kept loaded?