48mb ram?

[fladd]

Hi there,

I was just wondering, why such a tiny distribution needs 48mb if ram to boot.
It would be so perfect for running on low end machines (I still have a computer with 16mb ram around).
I think even Windows 2000 runs with 32mb ram.
So I am curious to know why tiny core has such comperatively high demands.

Regards,
fladd

[tclfan]

This is an excellent question.  Yes, indeed, Windows 2000 can run in 32M when optimized (redundant services disabled).
My explanation, which is of an end user one and not an expert one is:
It is no fault of TinyCore, but of the fact that everything is bloated nowadays. Windows 2000 was from the last days of memory efficiency. TinyCore is built on Linux kernel and every little app you load after that appears to require those bloated libraries and other baggage with loads of redundant code unrelated to what you want to do. Linux (normal distributions) is going the path of the bloat that equals or exceed MS Windows, which is a pity. Such as Tiny Core and SliTaz try to make it as small and efficient as possible.
There is another Linux that goes still further in efficiency... It is Kolibri, written completely in Assembler, taking 4M including a bunch of applications and desktop and runs in 16M memory, because it is in Assembler. It is excellent and looks nice, but development cycle appears to be very slow, apparently not many programmers out there can code in Assembler anymore...

[bmarkus]

There is another Linux that goes still further in efficiency... It is Kolibri, written completely in Assembler, taking 4M including a bunch of applications and desktop and runs in 16M memory, because it is in Assembler. It is excellent and looks nice, but development cycle appears to be very slow, apparently not many programmers out there can code in Assembler anymore...

I dont think that Kolibri has anything to do with Linux. It is a system built from scratch.

The main issue is to support hardware, where the Linux Kernel is doing his job. Without the Kernel no such wide variations of LINUX systems would exist. While Kolibri looks nice at first glance and a great one man effort, for example do not recognize LAN interface of my machines, etc.

[Lee]

I seem to recall that there was an issue with the type of ram based file system that was being used - it always reported zero free space, which interfered with some software startup/install scripts - so now the  base system (by default) copies everything to a different ram based fs and it is this copying process that prevents booting w/32 MB ram.

And isn't there a boot code to prevent that and allow booting in 32 MB?

Search the forums (like I just didn't).

[tclfan]

I dont think that Kolibri has anything to do with Linux. It is a system built from scratch.
The main issue is to support hardware, where the Linux Kernel is doing his job. Without the Kernel no such wide variations of LINUX systems would exist. While Kolibri looks nice at first glance and a great one man effort, for example do not recognize LAN interface of my machines, etc.

Yes, indeed. Is is not not a Linux distro but completely re-written in Assembler, an attempt to finally free the users from the bloat Linux is bringing along...
Yes, indeed, lots of hardware drivers are still missing in Kolibri, so some of my network cards were recognized, while others were not...
Interestingly though it brings another question of variation of network cards support among Linux countless variations... Being an end user, not an expert, I see significant difference in network support between Tiny Core, Slitaz, Austrumi, Puppy and Zenwalk (the biggest). From these, TinyCore appears to have the best network support, far better than most other ones listed above, at least in my testing. My question: What makes TinyCore the best in that respect? They appear to have the same kernel, however the difference is quite significant... E.g. just try to stik in a PCMCIA network card in your laptop... None recognizes one except TinyCore... Needless to say that network is key for TinyCore, otherwise you cannot load extensions, so is the exceptional network support provided because of this or it is a result of something else? I am curious how it was achieved...

[fladd]

Interesting answers so far. So it is this copy process that needs the additional 18mb. And slitaz e.g. works differently in this respect?
I would be very interested in the bootcode to boot with 32mb! So if anyone knows it, please let me know.

fladd

[tclfan]

Interesting answers so far. So it is this copy process that needs the additional 18mb. And slitaz e.g. works differently in this respect?
I would be very interested in the bootcode to boot with 32mb! So if anyone knows it, please let me know.
fladd

I think the bootcode is 'embed', if it has not changed in the meantime...

[bmarkus]

Interesting answers so far. So it is this copy process that needs the additional 18mb. And slitaz e.g. works differently in this respect?
I would be very interested in the bootcode to boot with 32mb! So if anyone knows it, please let me know.

fladd

If you have 32M and system boots I doubt that such system can be used for any practical purpose   Applications will require much more RAM. OK, you can use telnet, ping, console ftp, ... I do not see sense a system with less then 128M RAM and SWAP.

[tclfan]

If you have 32M and system boots I doubt that such system can be used for any practical purpose   Applications will require much more RAM. OK, you can use telnet, ping, console ftp, ... I do not see sense a system with less then 128M RAM and SWAP.

I think it might be possible to run something useful in 32 M when installed PPI and swap, although I did not try myself...
Run-all-in memory tend to require loads of ram, which grows quickly...
I noticed Austrumi appears to have still relatively reasonable memory requirements, although has lots of applications included. I do not how they do it, it appears to be Initramfs too...

[danielibarnes]

What is it about the kernel and/or TC that requires at least 32MB memory?

[curaga]

Kernel + unpacked tinycore.gz + RAM for actually running the kernel and boot ( + extra 16mb for the df size issue, when booting without the "embed" boot code).

Interestingly though it brings another question of variation of network cards support among Linux countless variations... Being an end user, not an expert, I see significant difference in network support between Tiny Core, Slitaz, Austrumi, Puppy and Zenwalk (the biggest). From these, TinyCore appears to have the best network support, far better than most other ones listed above, at least in my testing. My question: What makes TinyCore the best in that respect? They appear to have the same kernel, however the difference is quite significant... E.g. just try to stik in a PCMCIA network card in your laptop... None recognizes one except TinyCore... Needless to say that network is key for TinyCore, otherwise you cannot load extensions, so is the exceptional network support provided because of this or it is a result of something else? I am curious how it was achieved...

Point one - I have a PCMCIA network card
Of course with networking being essential to TC, we include everything ethernet in the base. It's possible other distros have decided things like pcmcia ethernet are too old to support, or that they have the support but not proper autodetection.
I'm especially surprised about Puppy, since they include huge, over 1mb binary dial-up drivers. Makes no sense to not include 32-ish kb pcmcia drivers.

[tclfan]

Thanks for the insight. I figured that since network support is essential to TC, this was planned accordingly and taken care very well...