Tiny Core Linux

Tiny Core Base => TCB Talk => Topic started by: V.Krishn on March 21, 2012, 12:20:39 AM

Title: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 21, 2012, 12:20:39 AM

As one gets to use TinyCore regularly having more than 500mb extensions,
would it possible to have an option to create UnionFs sfs out of existing extentions.
unionfs.lst - this can exist along with copy2fs and onboot.lst
 Extentions in unionfs.lst would be layed as unionfs and not symlinked thus speeding boot time.

Another usage - quick/neat packaging of a custom distro.

Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: curaga on March 21, 2012, 09:43:03 AM
Unionfs/aufs have different drawbacks to symlinks, mainly bugs and constant file opening overhead. We intentionally avoided them.

You're welcome to send an extension for unionfs though.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 23, 2012, 02:12:40 AM
Would it be possible to have aufs support in kernel / core.gz (increase in size ~170kb)

Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: curaga on March 23, 2012, 02:39:38 AM
No.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: roberts on March 23, 2012, 12:08:45 PM
Would it be possible to have aufs support in kernel / core.gz (increase in size ~170kb)
If you cannot accept the design of our system then why use it?
There are 700+ other distros for you to peruse many use unionfs/aufs.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 02:11:22 AM
@roberts
I am not much into kernel and module compiling.
But what does the following mean:
You're welcome to send an extension for unionfs though.
Query: Will such extension have progs to mount/create aufs fs?

The above questions are not imposing but are just queries.

I think I have understood the design principles.
So much to like that I have already created a prototype appliance.
I had also send a nice usage idea in personal message long before.

In fact I would want it to be slimmer.
Idea: remove kernel modules that targets old hardware and make them available as core-ohw.gz.

Roberts are you trying to shy away users?

Request: Extension tcz available in single package for most used kernel modules, reason its lengthy to download the development environment and compile modules against it for every tc release.
Query: Is such package available?
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: roberts on March 27, 2012, 02:52:37 AM
Why would you ask me about a quote from someone else? Should if not be directed at the individual who posted it?

Regarding unionfs/aufs from the beginning I decided not to use such and opted for a much smaller more simple solution. It is fundamental and as such most for the Core programs are built for it.

Now, if you wish to dicard what is Core and view this as solely a kernel, modules, and a few libraries  and start over with a new foundation then perhaps so. But that would be a different distribution. As I previously stated there are many distros that offer unionfs/aufs. To twist my words to make it that I want users to shy away misses the point.

Don't try to make me swim in the sea of sameness. If you cannot appreciate or celebrate that which is unique and fundamental to this distro then my question remains why use something that you wish or desire that its foundation was something other than it is?
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 03:02:56 AM
@roberts
I appreciate tc, and  stick to what the current kernel+core.gz is. :-)

Request: Extension tcz available in single package for most used kernel modules from tc core team, Is this ok?
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 03:16:46 AM
Regarding unionfs/aufs from the beginning I decided not to use such and opted for a much smaller more simple solution. It is fundamental and as such most for the Core programs are built for it.
Was not asking aufs support in kernel only for its boot time layering usage. Just that one of my appliance build on tc needed it.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: curaga on March 27, 2012, 09:06:26 AM
Quote
Idea: remove kernel modules that targets old hardware and make them available as core-ohw.gz.

How to decide the cutoff point? Someone will miss it regardless.

Quote
Request: Extension tcz available in single package for most used kernel modules from tc core team, Is this ok?

Again, how to decide "most used"? It's very hard to do one-size-fits-all when it doesn't fit anyone really.
I don't think there'd be much point in having duplicate contents in the repo.


If you have some specific hardware in your deployment, it is easy to target that hw and remove unnecessary modules.

Quote
But what does the following mean:

It means that if you want to build the module and the utils, you can send them to the repo, in my opinion.
Such would be restricted to after-boot usage, unless you want to create your own remaster.

Quote
Query: Will such extension have progs to mount/create aufs fs?

Entirely up to the extension creator. I have no interest in aufs/unionfs.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 10:13:08 AM
Hi Curaga,
Reading forum posts on TC looks more like its a locked down personal development platform.
For your above queries please let me know which is likely to be considered and I am ready to have discussion to possible solution.

Regards.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: curaga on March 27, 2012, 11:17:02 AM
Sorry, I don't understand?
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 12:05:17 PM
Nevertheless

whether likely to be considered or not
ISSUE 1: remove kernel modules that targets old hardware and make them available as core-ohw.gz.
Solution 1: Who decides the current cutoff point for core.gz, What are the reasons? - partial answer lies here.
Solution 2.
 a. What is the minimal hardware support for tc 4.4 - Ram (48), Processor? - based on these any hardware that likely not to run properly on lesser configs can safely be rejected.
 b. Built two Core/Tinycore(not CorePlus) - one with newer hardwares + more used modules and other with core-ohw.gz+core.gz(both) - (hope this can be done and its not a problem with depmod)
   eg. Core-4.4.iso - has core-ohw.gz+core.gz - this means there might be 1 to 2 mb increase in size.
       and Core-4.4n.iso - has core.gz - this might be 1 to 2 mb less in size.
 c. Based on core.gz(n) success, phase out modules gradually and mark them as old or less used.
 d. Results ie. complains versus success from n releases can serve ground for next releases.
 e. Users can always switch to regular downloads.
 f. Someone will miss it regardless
    -- adding notes in download section or in documentation helps, Main download links should point to regular iso.
 

I hope this to be considered
ISSUE 2: Extension tcz available in single package for most used kernel modules from tc core team
Solution 1: most used - live admin distros(eg. pmagic, sysrescucd, finnix, knoppix) are best to see what is needed. Range (compressed 5mb to 25mb)
Solution 2: Why bother - go for most i.e 25mb (knoppix kernel modules compressed size), as tcz packages are not minor version tagged, updating it to include more can be done on request.

Query: Can you point to any existing extension that has a kernel module to be loaded on boot or demand?

Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: curaga on March 27, 2012, 01:06:31 PM
Quote
Solution 1: Who decides the current cutoff point for core.gz, What are the reasons? - partial answer lies here.

That'd be upstream linux kernel, we basically support everything the 3.0 kernel does, barring some exceptions like unstable code.

I still miss the point, because separating older drivers would only benefit newer systems. Those newer systems are likely to have much more ram, so the 1mb saved is rarely critical.

Quote
I hope this to be considered
ISSUE 2: Extension tcz available in single package for most used kernel modules from tc core team
Solution 1: most used - live admin distros(eg. pmagic, sysrescucd, finnix, knoppix) are best to see what is needed. Range (compressed 5mb to 25mb)
Solution 2: Why bother - go for most i.e 25mb (knoppix kernel modules compressed size), as tcz packages are not minor version tagged, updating it to include more can be done on request.

See original-modules-*.tcz. All of the modules from our build come to a total of 17mb?

Quote
Query: Can you point to any existing extension that has a kernel module to be loaded on boot or demand?

Not sure I got that right, but for example the xf86-video-intel driver loads the graphics modules.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 01:12:22 PM
If you cannot accept the design of our system then why use it?

If you cannot appreciate or celebrate that which is unique and fundamental to this distro then my question remains why use something that you wish or desire that its foundation was something other than it is?

I would apologize.
Can someone point me to urls describing the intended usage, target audience and accepted forum topics for discussion.
I am using TC to build some appliances and just had few problem. Would try to be within the context.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: Rich on March 27, 2012, 01:32:16 PM
Hi V.Krishn
Quote
a. What is the minimal hardware support for tc 4.4 - Ram (48), Processor? - based on these any hardware that likely not to run properly on lesser configs can safely be rejected.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Remove i386 support? It's already gone.
Quote
b. Built two Core/Tinycore(not CorePlus) - one with newer hardwares + more used modules and other with core-ohw.gz+core.gz(both) - (hope this can be done and its not a problem with depmod)
   eg. Core-4.4.iso - has core-ohw.gz+core.gz - this means there might be 1 to 2 mb increase in size.
       and Core-4.4n.iso - has core.gz - this might be 1 to 2 mb less in size.
 c. Based on core.gz(n) success, phase out modules gradually and mark them as old or less used.
An offer to more than double the amount of work required to put out and maintain releases, very generous of you.
Quote
d. Results ie. complains versus success from n releases can serve ground for next releases.
Yes, more people posting on the forums complaining would be most welcome.
Quote
e. Users can always switch to regular downloads.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I'm guessing you mean other users, not you.
Quote
f. Someone will miss it regardless
Yes, someone else will miss support for their hardware, just not you.

TC is not a locked down personal development platform. It is a toolkit that supplies most users what they need to
boot into a console or GUI. It is then up to the user to install applications and modify the system to satisfy their needs.
What you are offering are not solutions, solutions address problems. What you are offering are your own personal
desires of how TC can be fixed to meet your own needs, regardless of the impact it might have on others.

I see you posted again, so:
Quote
Can someone point me to urls describing the intended usage, target audience and accepted forum topics for discussion.
http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html
The "Welcome" and "About" basically sum it up.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 01:47:27 PM
How to decide the cutoff point? Someone will miss it regardless.
Need to know what this means?

Quote
I still miss the point, because separating older drivers would only benefit newer systems. Those newer systems are likely to have much more ram, so the 1mb saved is rarely critical.

Thought it was important to keep the size of the iso to minimal.
If that is not, why not have aufs.ko in core? (though not used by tc)

Quote
See original-modules-*.tcz. All of the modules from our build come to a total of 17mb?

Thanks, would check and download.
Sad, I have rsync for TC dated - 2011/08/25 22:13:20 original-modules-3.0.3-tinycore.tcz showing size as 4096


Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: Rich on March 27, 2012, 01:59:46 PM
Hi V.Krishn
Quote
Thought it was important to keep the size of the iso to minimal.
It is, but not by locking out users just because they are not running the latest hardware available.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 02:09:28 PM
Quote
An offer to more than double the amount of work required to put out and maintain releases, very generous of you.

Then how about a web based custom builder.

Quote
Yes, more people posting on the forums complaining would be most welcome.

:-) - a learning - can be saved by having nice docs

Quote
http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html
The "Welcome" and "About" basically sum it up.
Needs more on targeted audience.

"The user has complete control over which applications and/or additional hardware to have supported,...."
Then why so much confusion on usage - and comments like "If you cannot accept the design...." OR "If you cannot appreciate or celebrate that which is unique...."
Should have just pointe to original-modules-*.tcz. (hoping this solves my problem)

Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: curaga on March 27, 2012, 02:25:29 PM
Quote
Thought it was important to keep the size of the iso to minimal.
If that is not, why not have aufs.ko in core? (though not used by tc)

Everything in the base *is* used, if not, it's likely to be removed. If you take a look at the release notes, many of them mention something being removed from the core.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 02:58:48 PM
Quote
See original-modules-*.tcz. All of the modules from our build come to a total of 17mb?

I am guessing aufs.ko to be in filesystems-3.0.21-tinycore.tcz?
http://aufs.sourceforge.net/ - says aufs3 is supported in 3.0x
Or do I need to compile?

Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: gerald_clark on March 27, 2012, 03:01:03 PM
No need to guess.
If you look you will see it is not.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: Rich on March 27, 2012, 03:10:04 PM
Hi V.Krishn
Quote
An offer to more than double the amount of work required to put out and maintain releases, very generous of you.

Then how about a web based custom builder.
You are assuming that someone has enough free time and a desire to design, build, debug, and maintain said website.
Quote
:-) - a learning - can be saved by having nice docs
Half the time people have problems because they don't read the docs to begin with.
Quote
Needs more on targeted audience.
Fine, here's my interpretation:
Target Audience: Users who are looking for a minimal bootable system (GUI or console) providing basic functions like
                                keyboard, mouse, screen, drive accessibility, and wired network support (wireless with CorePlus).
                                Said users can then install sound and accelerated graphics support should they wish, plus any
                                available applications they require, possibly getting their hands dirty and learning a little about
                                Linux in the process. This distro is for users who want to set it up their way and understand that they
                                may have to do some of the work themselves.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 03:15:27 PM
Quote
If you look you will see it is not.
;(
Any possibility on getting from TC download site?
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 03:21:28 PM
Target Audience: Users who are looking for a minimal bootable system (GUI or console) providing basic functions like
                                keyboard, mouse, screen, drive accessibility, and wired network support (wireless with CorePlus).
                                Said users can then install sound and accelerated graphics support should they wish, plus any
                                available applications they require, possibly getting their hands dirty and learning a little about
                                Linux in the process. This distro is for users who want to set it up their way and understand that they
                                may have to do some of the work themselves.

Looks nice, just that its mixing intended usage and target audience together.
Similar text should be on on some doc page if aproved by TC Team.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: Rich on March 27, 2012, 03:30:13 PM
Hi V.Krishn
It tells you what to expect. If it does not match ones expectations, they are not in the target audience.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 27, 2012, 03:42:17 PM
Similar text should be on... some doc page.
Good if expectations are also there, can minimize valuable Admin/Moderator work
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: V.Krishn on March 28, 2012, 12:52:14 AM
Quote
You are assuming that someone has enough free time and a desire to design, build, debug, and maintain said website.
For frontend in php, I could give it try. The jpeg design inputs needs to provided though.
Title: Re: Support for unionfs
Post by: hiro on March 30, 2012, 06:38:06 PM
try gobolinux