From: Walter Haidinger <walter.haidinger@gm...> - 2003-07-23 07:04:28
I was just catching up with the mailing-list and found that DL plans to
use the CD more extensively. Instead of extracting to ramdisk, packages
should be read from CD to save memory.
Well, while this a good idea at first sight, it also has some drawbacks.
To name but a few:
On a slow (read old) machine this may be an issue. While performance
from ramdisk _may_ be acceptable (imagine an old 486, not even Pentium),
the access time imposed by the CD-Rom _would_ render such a system
I doubt that neither CD-Roms nor CDs are built to spin 24/7
unlike hard- or even ramdisks! ;-)
* If you boot from net and provide the DL ISO by NFS, you cannot
unmount once DL is up.
Therefore a simple question:
Will the utilization of the CD optional, i.e. will DL still be able to
extract to a ramdisk as "usual" ?
If so, will this be a configurable option?
I'm asking this because I'm running DL on machines with low memory (16 to
32MB) and extract to harddisk (a mke2fs during boot to clean up doesn't
take that long) which replaces the ramdisk.
About this discussion to read from CD. Would a read-only filesystem residing
in RAM (I think there is such a filesystem available for Linux in the kernel
distribution) be nearly as good as running from CD?
I'm also thinking about booting from a file server.
From: Walter Haidinger <walter.haidinger@gm...> - 2003-07-23 08:59:26
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Mats Liljegren wrote:
> About this discussion to read from CD. Would a read-only filesystem residing
> in RAM (I think there is such a filesystem available for Linux in the kernel
> distribution) be nearly as good as running from CD?
I think the reason for using the CD is to lower the memory requirements
for DL in general. However, the current method should not be dropped!
A read-only filesystem is rather convenient for the admin than a security
feature, IMHO. After all, you have to have some write access somewhere and
then you can always modify the $PATH unless you encode the path too.
But then, didn't somebody complain recently about grep having been moved
and got the recommendation not to use absolute paths...