Quite right. Gparted can easily be stripped from the base sfs and be kept as an sfs add-on for whenever needed.rufwoof wrote:I always opt to not have the sfs copied to ram and just let the system decide what to cache or not. Quicker to boot, slower to initially load a program (but then typically no different) ... but does mean having the partition mounted (when ram copied all partitions can remain unmounted).
My mental reasoning is along the lines of 'why have the likes of gparted wastefully loaded into ram at each boot when I use it rarely'.
Stripping Down a Puppy
What's the point of using a new Puppy if you don't have the latest hardware or using some specific new software (which I don't)? All you really need to do as functionality is concerned, is to strip the old browser and get a new browser running as an add-on SFS. I can do everything with Precise 5.7.1 on my machine (base sfs repacked to 107MB, including the drivers) that I will be able to do with the newest Bionic Bigdog Startrek 3030.......Argolance wrote:Hello,
If I cut my finger, bleed like a calf and urgently need the plaster at the bottom of the first aid kit that I have to empty completely before I find it, it is not good in my opinion.
Having everything at hand quickly/immediately is one of the strengths and the uniqueness of a system that is fully loaded into RAM. This does not prevent me, if the opportunity arises, from running Puppy in another way with options like "nocopy" (or any other) made available to the user.
In any case, I think that the advantages of such a system far outweigh the possible disadvantages.
Cheers!
Cordialement.
I haven't looked at the actual code, but I'd imagine (perhaps incorrectly) that copying the sfs(s) to ram would result in just that, a duplication of the sfs stored in ram space. dirent/inodes etc updated to point to that, so when the system or user requests gparted binary for instance the dirent points to the first inode that points to gparted inside the ram based copy of the sfs ... that is then read and decompressed again into ram, and potentially remains cached thereafter.
So ram loading uses the size of the sfs's plus cached versions of any files/data read out of the sfs.
Not reading the sfs into ram involves the dirent/inodes pulling in the blocks from disk (or whatever medium), decompressing and using/storing in cache.
Once cached, the access speeds are comparable, only the first time a program/file is accessed is it slower for if disk based rather than ram based - excepting of course if the cache is released because the space is needed by something else, in which case it has to be re-read from disk again.
Less efficient use of ram to load the sfs's into ram, slower to boot (when copied to ram), quicker to open programs on first opening a program once loaded into ram, and does mean that once ram loaded the disk/device can be unplugged (or CD/DVD ejected). Not copying is quicker to boot, better usage of ram, slower to open a program the first time its read/opened, but potentially the same thereafter if it remains cached. But does mean that the disk/CD/DVD/device has to remain available throughout the entire session.
For DVD/CD/USB boot, where you may want the DVD/CD/USB port to be used for doing something else, then copying to ram is perhaps the more preferable. For HDD frugal installs that I use, its better IMO to not copy the sfs(s) to ram.
So ram loading uses the size of the sfs's plus cached versions of any files/data read out of the sfs.
Not reading the sfs into ram involves the dirent/inodes pulling in the blocks from disk (or whatever medium), decompressing and using/storing in cache.
Once cached, the access speeds are comparable, only the first time a program/file is accessed is it slower for if disk based rather than ram based - excepting of course if the cache is released because the space is needed by something else, in which case it has to be re-read from disk again.
Less efficient use of ram to load the sfs's into ram, slower to boot (when copied to ram), quicker to open programs on first opening a program once loaded into ram, and does mean that once ram loaded the disk/device can be unplugged (or CD/DVD ejected). Not copying is quicker to boot, better usage of ram, slower to open a program the first time its read/opened, but potentially the same thereafter if it remains cached. But does mean that the disk/CD/DVD/device has to remain available throughout the entire session.
For DVD/CD/USB boot, where you may want the DVD/CD/USB port to be used for doing something else, then copying to ram is perhaps the more preferable. For HDD frugal installs that I use, its better IMO to not copy the sfs(s) to ram.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]
-
Argolance
- Posts: 3767
- Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 22:57
- Location: PORT-BRILLET (Mayenne - France)
- Contact:
Bonjour,
@rufwoof
Nice focus, thanks!
.
When everything works fine according to your needs, there is (IMO) no reason to change to a newer Puppy. ToOpPy is based on Puppy Precise 5.7.3 and I have not yet found a sufficient reason to do so.
Cordialement.
@rufwoof
Nice focus, thanks!
I completely agree with younic007 wrote:What's the point of using a new Puppy if you don't have the latest hardware or using some specific new software (which I don't)?
.When everything works fine according to your needs, there is (IMO) no reason to change to a newer Puppy. ToOpPy is based on Puppy Precise 5.7.3 and I have not yet found a sufficient reason to do so.
Cordialement.
It's sometimes challenging to use a new browser in an older version of puppylniux. That said I know there is a new (or newish?) version of palemoon with a glibc tweak that people are using on older versions of puppy such as Precise, Wary and Lucid.Argolance wrote:Bonjour,
@rufwoof
Nice focus, thanks!I completely agree with younic007 wrote:What's the point of using a new Puppy if you don't have the latest hardware or using some specific new software (which I don't)?
When everything works fine according to your needs, there is (IMO) no reason to change to a newer Puppy. ToOpPy is based on Puppy Precise 5.7.3 and I have not yet found a sufficient reason to do so.
Cordialement.