Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Tue 21 Oct 2014, 05:00
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
aufs for Puppy
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 2 [28 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Author Message
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5037
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 15:57    Post subject:  

I'm wondering what the umount-FULL is for, as the aufs commands are all:

mount-FULL -o remount,append:/initrd/pup_ro3 /
mount-FULL -o remount,del:/initrd/pup_ro3 /

It didn't work when I tried: umount-FULL -o remount,del:/initrd/pup_ro3 /
It froze same as before without the "-- i" error.

I don't think it's right, so I didn't try: umount-FULL /initrd/pup_ro3


Nathan; Are we suppost to be using a different un-mounting command?

Are you using GraphPup for testing this... or what? Maybe it's different somehow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
kirk

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 1419
Location: florida

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 17:50    Post subject:  

Quote:
For the record, Kirk, can you give me the exact commands you are using to mount a squashfile and add the branch, and then top remove it? I have a certain suspicion I want to check out.


I haven't tried to add a branch yet. I was trying to remove a branch that init had added. My first post has the exact (only) command I was trying to use. Could init be adding branches in some different fashon?

Couldn't download your new package, I'll try again later tonight. Don't have time to test right now anyway. I'll also try adding a branch and then try to remove it.

Thanks again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Nathan F


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1760
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 18:11    Post subject:  

Quote:
I'm wondering what the umount-FULL is for

If you look in the script umount.aufs that comes with aufs, it calls umount. Since umount is a link to busybox in Puppy and cannot accept the -i option I replaced it with the full binary, and changed the umount.aufs script to place the correct call. The commands add or remove branches are exactly the same as I mentioned before, and the aufs kernel module handles the rest.

_________________
Bring on the locusts ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5037
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 19:16    Post subject:  

Sorry, I caught that from your other post, but thought it had another purpose.
It solved the error: Invalid argument -- i
But the crash after that is apparently something different.

If it works for you, need to know why that Puppy version works & not others.

Terry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Nathan F


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1760
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 19:40    Post subject:  

I'm using 2.14 with the patched initrd.gz and aufs_utils package I posted.

Nathan

_________________
Bring on the locusts ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5037
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 20:26    Post subject:  

Here's the sequence of commands I used:

sh-3.00# mount -t vfat /dev/hda5 /initrd/mnt/data
sh-3.00# mount -t squashfs -o loop devx_214.sfs /initrd/pup_ro3
sh-3.00# mount-FULL -o remount,append:/initrd/pup_ro3 /
sh-3.00# mount-FULL -o remount,del:/initrd/pup_ro3 /

The cursor returns & freezes, & then everything else does slow crash.
Mounting's no problem it seems, it's weard that unmounting does this.
I didn't use "mount-FULL" for the first 2, but they mounted correctly.

As I said, the mount command does give the correct aufs line for me.
All I could find for testing was: puppy-2.14-seamonkey-fulldrivers.iso
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Nathan F


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1760
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 21:53    Post subject:  

It would seem that this might have something to do with memory, at least from what I can tell. I experienced no problems adding or deleting branches on my newer athlon 2200Mhz, with 450MB of ram. Moving over to my kids athlon K6, with @750MB ram, still no problems. Then I shut it down, took out two memory sticks, and rebooted, leaving 256MB in place, and experienced the exact behavior you guys are reporting. I'd say that's a clear sign, unless some other data comes my way.

In any event, it seems that aufs makes it perfectly ok to at least add union branches, but it's risky to remove them. We need a lot more testing, in particular on lower end hardware, but I'd like to proceed under the assumption we could probably make a little program to choose extensions to load, and then just leave them loaded until power down or reboot. Perhaps this could be integrated with a configuration file to control what extensions get loaded at boot time, for added flexibility. It's not perfect obviously, but it's definately better functionality than we had before.

If only we could count on everybody having a ton of ram to work with.

Nathan

_________________
Bring on the locusts ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
kirk

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 1419
Location: florida

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 22:19    Post subject:  

I replace the mount and umount commands with the FULL versions in the mount.aufs and umount.aufs scripts. (couldn't download the new package). All seems to work well for me. I added and removed serveral branches.

I don't understand how these scripts get called when you use the mount-FULL command.

Is there a way to see the state of the current union? The unionctl --list would show you what branches make up the union, what order they are in, and their permissions.

Besides the man page do you know of some other documentation?

Looks promising!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
kirk

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 1419
Location: florida

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2007, 22:26    Post subject:  

Quote:
leaving 256MB in place, and experienced the exact behavior you guys are reporting. I'd say that's a clear sign, unless some other data comes my way.


Since getting the mount/umount FULL thing fixed it seems to work well, but I have 512MB of ram. Wonder if swap file usage could be a problem? Free show no swap being utilized on my system. Tomorrow I'll see if I can try it on my kids computer with 256MB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Nathan F


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1760
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar 2007, 00:30    Post subject:  

Like I said, we need more testing on lower end hardware.

Quote:
Is there a way to see the state of the current union?

Code:
cat /proc/mounts | grep aufs

or possibly
Code:
mount | grep aufs

Using the mount command shows what is in /etc/mtab, but this does not seem to reliably get updated, so reading /proc/mounts is the more reliable method.

As for why and how it is calling the scripts that is something I may have to investigate at the source level. I have theories based on how it is behaving and what is in the scripts, but no hard facts yet. I'm no C programmer but I can usually follow along somewhat.

Thanks guys for your hard work and patience testing this. I can only test on the hardware I have myself, and probably would have missed a few problems without your input.

Nathan

_________________
Bring on the locusts ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5037
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar 2007, 03:42    Post subject:  

I'll test & verify this when I get to a PC with at least 512MB of ram.
This is strange, Puppy-1 had no such problem, only applies to Puppy-2.

I'd hoped the boot manager we discussed wouldn't be needed, but in light of this I'll finish it.
And I'll add detection of ram size for possable sfs file swapping if this proves to be correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5037
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat 17 Mar 2007, 17:40    Post subject:  

Bad news on testing, only son's PC has 512MB, & it has Win2K & no floppy.
So no easy way to test the memory thing, but you seem to have verified it.
It's hard to imagine what the connection is... maybe AUFS rather than Puppy2 ?

I posted a testing BootManager GUI in Cutting Edge... & need input on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Nathan F


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1760
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)

PostPosted: Sat 17 Mar 2007, 21:27    Post subject:  

Very good, I'll put it on my to do list. I had to go out of town for work though, so I'm backed up now on some other things.

Nathan

_________________
Bring on the locusts ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 2 [28 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0705s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0043s) ][ GZIP on ]