Tiny Core Linux

Tiny Core Base => TCB Q&A Forum => Topic started by: slo.sleuth on December 21, 2010, 04:40:19 PM

Title: [solved:] Dynamic root filesystem remastering: max initramfs size
Post by: slo.sleuth on December 21, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
Does anyone know the maximum size of initramfs allowed by syslinux?  I am attempting a Dynamic remaster of TC as suggested in the wiki at http://wiki.tinycorelinux.com/Dynamic+root+filesystem+remastering (http://wiki.tinycorelinux.com/Dynamic+root+filesystem+remastering).  I don't find the limitation listed in the syslinux wiki.

I tried booting with an 82mb initramfs and booting failed, complaining it was too big.  Alternatively, I could make several initramfs files if I knew how small to make them.
Title: Re: Dynamic root filesystem remastering: max initramfs size
Post by: tinypoodle on December 21, 2010, 05:07:24 PM
According to H. Peter Avin there is no such limitation by syslinux per se.
He recommends to:
Quote
a) report the output from meminfo.c32;
b) try using linux.c32 to run the kernel

b) is because linux.c32 is smarter about where it puts things than the core kernel loader; it's actually a standalone preview of the next generation Syslinux code
Title: [solved:] Dynamic root filesystem remastering: max initramfs size
Post by: slo.sleuth on December 21, 2010, 05:19:10 PM
Yes, I found that, thank you.  Turns out, I'm a knucklehead!  Sometimes it just takes an embarrassing post to remind one of that fact.  

I was testing in qemu, and forgot to change the default ram from 128mb.  It booted fine when I increased the memory.

So, in case someone stumbles on this thread: Check to see that you have sufficient ram to load the initramfs if you receive the "initrd too large" syslinux error on boot.
Title: Re: [solved:] Dynamic root filesystem remastering: max initramfs size
Post by: tinypoodle on December 21, 2010, 05:55:43 PM
You could have mentioned something that this was about emulation, plus you neither opened the thread in the specific subforum for such, but in "TCB Q&A Forum".
 
Knowing that could easily have led someone to suspect a virtual mem limit.