HD install for special purpose.

[kagashe]

I am running TC on 256 MB RAM machine which can give only 640x480x16 resolution on default X, therefore, I have to use Xorg.

I installed OSS, minefield, Flashsupport, Leafpad and emelfm2 and happily using it.

Then I began compiling gtk applications for which I had to load other dev packages. Then I wanted to compile pygtk which required to load Python and python-devs as tce.

With so many packages pygtk was compiling as if it will take 4 hours or more.

Then I thought that I should go for hard disk install to reduce the use of memory. One user had posted a method for HD install of TC on Ubuntuforums.. I used this method.

Then I had to install all the .tce packages on this installation. With this method the memory requirement reduced to less than half and I could compile pygtk within a few minutes.

The HD install method is simple. I copied the contents of Tc iso to one partition and moved bzImage and tinycore.gz to / of the partition then extracted the / tree:

# gunzip tinycore.gz
# cpio -i <tinycore
# rm tinycore.gz

and added following to /boot/grub/menu.lst:

title Tinycore
root (hd0,X)
kernel /bzImage root=/dev/hdd(X+1)
boot

kagashe

NB: There is one more advantage. I don't have to load the required devs for compiling since they are already installed on hard disk.

[curaga]

Thanks for sharing.

Please note that this type of installation is not officially supported though, so every user creating a permanent HD install is on their own for making it work

[roberts]

This is my personal opinion and not to be construed negatively.

I didn't write about this or even include it as a mode of operation, as one loses the benefits of Tiny Core.
That being a safe pristine boot as I wrote about in the Getting Started document, even the hybrid PPI will suffer from system rot, caused by user error, system bug, hardware glitch, solar flare, or space invaders. (just kidding). I once penned a article entitled "Not your Father's Operating System" in which I wrote why I feel it is no longer the best environment to do traditional hard drive installations. It has always been my design philosophy to offer an alternative But as with any free open source distribution, you can do what you want. If that is what I wanted, I would opt for one of hundreds of Linux operating systems that do that sort of thing better.

[kagashe]

I know that there is my good old (I mean as old as my Linux experience) buntu for traditional HD install or Debian or Arch if I want lighter. TC is not designed for HD install and not supposed to be used like that.

Frankly I applied HD install as a solution to the problem I was facing for compiling on low resource machine.

There is one more bug in me, I don't burn CDs (or avoid burning them), therefore, there is a partition required for any new Linux and one was already there for TC.

Let me make it clear I am not supporting this type of HD install of TC and changing the title of this thread.

[mikshaw]

I would opt for one of hundreds of Linux operating systems that do that sort of thing better.

I'd disagree.  From my experience there much less than hundreds that do that sort of thing better.  Most distributions today are useless on older hardware.  Many will install piles of useless software.  There are some (perhaps many?) that are no different than TC in that the installation consists of nothing more than extracting a compressed file system onto the harddrive.

I have a 400mhz/128mb machine stored away, with which I'll probably try this very simple HD install.  I wouldn't be surprised if it could be kept fairly stable by simply installing additional software to /usr/local.  In that case, upgrading or repairing the base system should be nearly as easy as upgrading any TC system.

[tobiaus]

there seems to be some room for an easy solution here. knoppix begat feather and dsl which begat tinycore, and knoppix and/or feather had an "hd install (experimental)" option from the menu.

if tinycore's developer believes tinycore is better without an hd install, and yet tinycore's users feel the option is important, it's as simple as adapting the script or process already provided, putting it in the menu, and entitling it either "hd install (experimental)," hd install (not recommended!)," something of that nature. the trick here is that earlier knoppix-related distros have already established the convention of unsupported hd installs. they don't need to become a big deal or anything more than semi-official. to really make it tinycore-esque, you could still add it to the menu with such a title, but you could actually create the script and menu addition as a .tce extension, and ensure that fewer people bother to try it.

[softwaregurl]

It seems to me that a hybrid of Tiny Core  HD install, persistent /usr/local/, persistent home and backup of anything else, burnt to CD, and even stripped of mods not used by the box it's dedicated to could be practical.  This would give the pristine state because the CD is not writable.  What slows me down on small distros is the processor usage to uncompress.  There was a theory about early disk compression that a slow drive and a fast processor would benefit from compression because less data had to be read from the disk.  Now I find the opposite true (financially).  It is a lot cheaper to grab a used "big" fast hard drive or fast CD-ROM then to get a faster processor and the board to support it.

I think I have seen that either tar or mkisofs can use lower compression ratios but I have not had the time to investigate further.  I am not so sure that the actual size of a distro is much more then a status symbol (other then saving bandwidth).

S.G.

[tobiaus]

I am not so sure that the actual size of a distro is much more then a status symbol (other then saving bandwidth).

must disagree there. it's a conclusion that's easy to reach, until you're booting with 256 ram (or less) and intend to use a livecd, and you want performance, too. then the size is one of the main factors in choosing, if not the first. and if you're customizing a distro, and want to strip out anything you're not using, a truly minimalist core like tc means you don't have to strip things out, simply don't add anything you don't want been looking for tc for a long time, it just didn't exist until recently. the closest to it was basiclinux. dsl was a good compromise that had better extensions and was easier to use.

[roberts]

In regards to compression and size...

First let me state that TC does not run from a compressed image, like KNOPPIX or DSL.
It was the kernel developers, who in v2.6 enhanced the initrd capabiliites of such with the new initramfs in which they, the kernel developers, decided on cpio and gzip. There decisions are documented.

So, TC boots from a gzipped cpio image into ram. TC runs extremely fast as it runs from ram uncompressed.

If size was paramount, I would use a much higher compression other than gzip, i.e., lzma. In fact, it appears that lzma will a supported option for such, as the build of the current system, using lzma would have meant using patches. Lzma patches was in fact not selected as the uncompress time was noticeable, i..e., slower booting than our current deployment.

The pristine boot that I have championed for five years during my involvement with DSL, is what I am still an ardent proponent. You don't need to be booting from cdrom to achieve it. Instead my recommended method to "install to hard drive" is frugal. That is copying two files bzImage and tinycore.gz to any partition of your hard drive and point your bootloader to it. I recommend using grub for easy editing of additional boot time options.

On my developement machine I have grub set to boot TC in all the various operating modes:

Code: [Select]

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tce=hda3/tcZ restore=hda3/tc_backup nolocal)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet restore=hda3/tc_backup tz=US/Pacific settime nolocal tce=hda3/tcZ
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tce=hda3/tcE restore=hda3/tc_backup nolocal)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet restore=hda3/tc_backup tz=US/Pacific settime nolocal tce=hda3/tcE
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tclocal=hda1 restore=hda1)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet  tclocal=hda1 restore=hda1 tz=US/Pacific settime
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (base norestore nolocal xsetup)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet tz=US/Pacific base norestore nolocal xsetup
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz


[softwaregurl]

I was going to reword that sentence this morning but apparently instead of taking offense it sparked a discussion.  I have noticed that uncompressing is the slowest  part of the boot on 200Mhz or slower machines (but still faster then even Win 3.1x and much more capable).  If it was just TCB that would be fine but adding a bunch of extensions and as backups grow over time the boot gets slow uncompressing them all thus the speed benefit of persistent /usr/local and /home.  Also accessing a mountable compressed file system is noticeably slower. 

as far as memory usage, with mountable file systems its not so much an issue unless one wants the speed of running entirely in ram.  But if I am spending a lot of time at 100% processor usage then I've lost that benefit.  And I am going to have to strip even TCB to get it to run on an old laptop with 32 megs but the video uses some and I get a kernel panic.  I use it as wireless ssh client.

I guess what I'm getting at is optimizing compression for the individual machine and the users preferences.  finding the best balance of resource usage.   An insermountable task for a developer, but attainable by the user.

[roberts]

Let me be clear that the development efforts for TC is not solely for older hardware.
TC has been mischaracterized on Distrowatch and now several posts by various members here.

Older hardware of said class( 200Mhz)  is not very capable in running much of any of the newer software.
There are existing distributions Deli and DSL that support older hardware very well.

While I am not discouraging TC's use on any target hardware, I am certainly not targeting such for TC development.

Many of the same "issues" that I faced while at DSL. Stretching the distribution to accommodate an ever wider spectrum of older and the newest hardware.

[tobiaus]

There are existing distributions Deli and DSL that support older hardware very well.

although deli is not available as a livecd, which means i am unable to use it, and unless john andrews changes his mind, (perhaps?) i believe dsl will not be the option for old hardware it used to be. though that remains to be seen. if i misunderstood the reasons for tc being so small, then i will try not to further the misunderstanding in the future- thanks for clarifying.

[roberts]

I think TC covers the hardware spectrum very well.
Booting TC and selecting only gtk1 apps is a viable option of older computers.

But the focus of TC is not to only support old hardware.

This discussion started by the posting of a traditional hard drive installation method not about boot from live cd.
.
TC does not offer full package management to support a traditional hard drive installation. hundreds of distribution offer that.

I suppose because of lack of documentation and the traditional conservative mindset, confusion abounds. But then we have just begun.

I don't want to see my efforts be made the focus of only supporting old hardware. If that were the case I would not have begun. I find the arguments interesting. Old hardware is old. That is it is not changing and typically unable to run newer software, hence, our offering of gtk1 apps. But back to my point if you have old hardware and wish to run the programs of its era, then why wouldn't a polished older 2.4 distribution be your solution? Trying to run the newest program on old hardware does not make sense to me. You can only put some many potatoes in a 10 lb sack.

TC is about a new concept, not about targeting a particular era of hardware.

Now I feel like I am repeating myself, oh well, might as well

While I am not discouraging TC's use on any target hardware, I am certainly not targeting such for TC development.

[tobiaus]

i get what you're saying. i've said it before and i'll say it again, and without any disrespect to other parties intended, i think the best thing that ever happened to dsl is that you joined the project. and, i think the other best thing that ever happened to dsl is that you left and created tc.

i believe tc is much closer to what i wanted of dsl than even dsl was, but, dsl was my favorite distro at the time you were working on it. naturally, there is part of my thinking that thinks "dsl" whenever i try to guess what you're doing, and i'm not the only person that's going to repeatedly make that mistake.

tc is not dsl, but it is reminiscent enough that someday it might be worth explaining the differences. but since as you said, it's only just begun, we might all figure out more as we see more of tc. because of its size, upgrading by blanking the cdrw and writing the new iso is incredibly quick and easy.

as for older hardware, there is one very obvious and deliberate way that (much) "older hardware" will never be as supported as it was. the 2.6 kernel will never support as much "old hardware" as 2.6 will. in the past i've been against 2.6, but mostly because of an issue that has not presented a problem in tc, or in the larger more "conventional" distros. other than that issue, i like 2.6, a lot.

[JohnJS]

Tried the codes below exactly as written but get error 15 no such file ....
(am trying to dual boot with dsl4.4.10)
What am I doing incorrectly?. The two files are in my hda3 partition.

The pristine boot that I have championed for five years during my involvement with DSL, is what I am still an ardent proponent. You don't need to be booting from cdrom to achieve it. Instead my recommended method to "install to hard drive" is frugal. That is copying two files bzImage and tinycore.gz to any partition of your hard drive and point your bootloader to it. I recommend using grub for easy editing of additional boot time options.

On my developement machine I have grub set to boot TC in all the various operating modes:

Code: [Select]

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tce=hda3/tcZ restore=hda3/tc_backup nolocal)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet restore=hda3/tc_backup tz=US/Pacific settime nolocal tce=hda3/tcZ
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tce=hda3/tcE restore=hda3/tc_backup nolocal)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet restore=hda3/tc_backup tz=US/Pacific settime nolocal tce=hda3/tcE
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (tclocal=hda1 restore=hda1)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet  tclocal=hda1 restore=hda1 tz=US/Pacific settime
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz

title Tiny Core on hda3 (base norestore nolocal xsetup)
kernel (hd0,2)/tinycore/bzImage quiet tz=US/Pacific base norestore nolocal xsetup
initrd (hd0,2)/tinycore/tinycore.gz


[^thehatsrule^: fixed post]