Tiny Core Extensions > TCE Q&A Forum
What is the practical difference in tce vs tcz ?
pema:
Gentlemen, some confusion about extensions.
I have used both extensions and often I find both extension types for same package. In wiki it is only mentioned that tce draws more ram. When do I need to have tce's ? When will tcz's not work ? Are the extensions once loaded backed up to my local .tgz and then removable ?
roberts:
See http://www.tinycorelinux.com/getting_started.html
Basically extensions are store in a persistent partition not in your backup.
tcz are mounted and therefore easily unmounted and use considerably less ram.
Both types usually load at boot time, but can be "upon demand" (optional directory), or "installed" in a persistent partition or loop file (boot code local=hdXY).
Modularity, factorization of static content (extensions) from dynamic (user files), and quick booting are the concepts of Tiny Core.
mcewanw:
I had a tce only setup and decided to try [EDIT] tcz only for a while in order to experience the benefits of low-RAM usage. However, the amount of memory used (according to "free" at any rate) seemed to be very similar, but every program took considerably longer to load when tcz's were used (and the system thus appeared sluggish in comparison to using tce's only).
I noted that the tcz file is mounted to /tmp/local.
Is that in tempfs or RAM as I imagine it is?
On the above basis I researched a bit on tempfs and though I'm still pondering the matter doubt that mounting tcz's onto any RAM filesystem ends up providing any RAM saving (the view supported by the actual performance of my system). For example the following link provides a short discussion which seems to also suggest that tempfs (and thus, I imagine, any method of mounting tcz's onto RAM) does not save RAM at all:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2005-February/016885.html
I naturally then searched the tiny core forum to see if there was anyone else doubting the benefits of tcz in terms of their saving RAM and came across the following older thread in which user Curaga seems to suggest that tcz extensions do not in fact save much if anything in terms of RAM when mounted onto RAM (as they seem to be).
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?&topic=231.0
I thus question that the default tiny core is using tcz's in a way that is as useful as suggested in Core Concepts, and wonder if Curaga's comment from the thread above doesn't point the way to how tcz's should better be used?
--- Quote from: curaga on December 14, 2008, 05:30:57 AM ---Using tcz is only ram-efficient when they are not in RAM themselves; if they are for example on a hd or usb stick. That's because they are mounted instead of extracted.
--- End quote ---
If I have this wrong I would be grateful if you could suggest some reliable means of measuring the advantages gained, since using "free" at least, reveals nothing advantageous (and the systems actual performance can't help but leave me doubtful about using tcz's).
^thehatsrule^:
It is up to the user how they want to run their system, and there will be differences depending on which extensions are used.
As for actual measurements... I haven't done any formal tests, but they seem to work for those who use them.
I think there's some confusion in your post. The main point is that you'd save the most amount of memory if you do not store tcz's in RAM. You can choose whether or not to do so.
Note that tce is a tgz but not a tcz.
[fixed post a bit]
mcewanw:
--- Quote from: ^thehatsrule^ on May 03, 2009, 07:24:57 PM ---Note that tce is a tgz but not a tcz.
--- End quote ---
oops... accidentally wrote tgz when I of course meant tcz. Hope my edits to original post have now fixed that.
--- Quote from: ^thehatsrule^ on May 03, 2009, 07:24:57 PM ---It is up to the user how they want to run their system, and there will be differences depending on which extensions are used . . . The main point is that you'd save the most amount of memory if you do not store tcz's in RAM. You can choose whether or not to do so.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I accept that it is up to the user. However, my point is that TC "Core Concepts" appears to me to say that using tcz's instead of tce's simple will save RAM, when in practice, simply replacing tce's with tcz's doesn't seem to offer that advantage at all. If you simply populate your tce folder with tcz's and on grub kernel line have a tce=... option then there seems to be little (if any) RAM gain at all; without definite instructions I think many users may thus be mislead by the tcz "Core Concepts" description/claim.
Of course a user might use tclocal with tce's; in which case tce's will no longer be sitting in RAM but instead reside on a persistent location (so no advantage there in using tcz's either surely?)
So if Core Concepts doesn't indicate how to save RAM with tcz's, where is the possibility currently documented anywhere?
I presume one can loop mount a tcz from a persistent location, rather than it being mounted on [EDIT] /tmp/tcloop as occurs when using tcz's with grub kernel line option tce=... and not using tclocal.
[EDIT]
Perhaps I am simply stupid, but it seems to me that others continue to have inadequately answered misconceptions, brought about by the current TC documentation, regarding the advantages or otherwise of using tcz extensions, as in Kagashe's original post ("inadequate" purely in the sense of not being clarified in terms of tcz installation documentation):
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=231.0
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version