A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#31 Post by RSH »

starhawk wrote:just objecting to an incorrect assumption
This would, could and possibly should be another point of discussion, since I did not meant poor people staying hungry in poor countries; I meant the fat German beer drinking soccer and car-racing fans, that would do each illegal (because of not paying taxes, which we do call "Schwarzarbeit") Job to get some money that weren't really needed. You'll find them in each and every more or less rich country. But again: please, do not start and/or continue any off topic discussion here.

@gcmartin

...puh, this is really a huge post (the first one of yours), and I don't know if I really do come through all of it - will try later, though.
mavrothal wrote:They do not download to RAM or a destination that you define. So you can not use/test them on first boot.
Ok, I see now.

This is a good point, I did not thought about. My focus was on installing after downloading and getting the SFS Modules directly downloaded to install/boot directory.

Possibly a good option/feature to be added in my next edit of the SFS P.L.U.S.

Will mark this...
BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
I'm not talking for a none-use of a save layer in general.

My point is to make Puppy extremely user friendly especially for Puppy Newcomers - which still I am. Just installing the OS and go - using the applications without any hassle...

A Newcomer in between would become familiar with the Puppy, in an easier way (imho) and this would prevent the Newcomer from leaving Puppy too quickly, because of all the known Puppy Linux issues.
gcmartin wrote:How many of this thread have seen @TaZoC's Puppy's LightHouse64 "Mariner" version?
If you haven't seen it and you have a 64bit capable PC, you may want to take a moment;
I have read about LightHouse64 "Mariner" version, but I don't own a 64bit computer and so, I could not check it out.
If so, @TaZoC's distro implementation, an over 2 year old implementation I might add, may have gone in a direction which is being discussed in this thread.
Pity, if so, as it seems to have done/executed nothing to the evolution of Puppy Linux.
You be the Judge.
For what a Judge would be needed in this here case?

Are we executing any sort of OS-Race?

NO! This is not about my ... OS and/or to promote my ... OS!
simargl5 wrote:Well, your suggestion about using modules is similar to how Slax works, it can load unlimited number of modules - they are called bundles, but actually they are same as sfs modules- and every program or library is provided only as sb bundle, so there is no installing packages in standard way, only activating and deactivating of bundles. Also, dependencies are resolved automatically.
mikeb wrote:...inspired by SLAX 6
Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?

It could have me one saving a huge amount of time and therefor turning me one into a lucky owner of an Puppy Linux Operating System way much faster... :lol:
Customise each machine easily.... just throw in whats needed for each situation.
Exactly!
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#32 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote:Please, do have a look again into /etc/rc.d and you'll find 3 (three) rc.shutdown files.
As there are:
new-rc.shutdown
orig-rc.shutdown
rc.shutdown
I'm using this to switch a option to create a save file (if wanted), which is able to be switched on/off by LazY Puppy's Shutdown-GUI.
I used your shutdown GUI. I selected to reboot and I also selected the create save file option: The screen went black and the computer became unresponsive. Had to do a hard reset. Again my point: You replaced a perfectly usable standard solution with a ...OK, never mind.

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#33 Post by RSH »

@MochiMoppel

Please, report bugs in LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 EN version in its EN Forum.

Thanks!

Reply to this here reported by you, is in the LazY Puppy EN Forum.
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#34 Post by MochiMoppel »

I think you missed my point. It's not about the bug, it's about your goal. What do you want to achieve? You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#35 Post by RSH »

MochiMoppel wrote:I think you missed my point.
No!

You are missing the point!
MochiMoppel wrote:It's not about the bug, it's about your goal.
Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.
What do you want to achieve?
I don't want to achieve anything, because obviously you can't really achieve anything in Puppy Linux - except for your own needs and your own build and used OS. If it was true, what gcmartin stated about Lighthouse Mariner, one would not need to take LazY Puppy for comparison.

There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).
MochiMoppel wrote:You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?
No!

I'm not talking of/about the
- non-use of a save file in general
- removing of save file functions
- replacing of save file functions by using my Personal Configuration and Data SFS Manager

I doubt this Personal Configuration and Data SFS Manager would have reached a point where it could be used for that and I'm convinced, we do have experts, who are able to solve/build such in a much more efficient way, as I did.

So, I'm just talking and voting for a modular use of applications (preferring SFS Modules) and Operating System. That's just all!

I just assumed, the used data -when comparing the Operating Systems in the first post,- would have made it clear.

And for such modular use I'm convinced of the concept - especially for Newcomers. Because it is so easy to just click a menu entry or desktop icon or whatever and getting the SFS loaded and its application executed immediately compared to load SFS Modules manually via sfs_load and/or to install PET packages stored somewhere over the HD drives etc.pp.

I'm able to use this currently in 10 different Operating Systems based on 6 different Puppies using kernels from 2.6.33-2 up to 3.2.5. All SFS Modules are stored in one directory from where the Operating Systems do load and use its applications. Some are made for a specific OS, but most of them do work in each of the Operating Systems.

And all I have to do is to create some RunScripts from the SFS Modules and to include them into a remastered OS.

Some statistical Data:

Files added to the OS (uncompressed sizes, LazY Puppy 4)

- in total: 15 MB (2383 files, 772 directories)

SFS Modules and Applications available for immediate use (GZ compressed sizes)

- in total: 6965 MB (427 files)

To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.

If you want to check this for the applications in LazY Puppy2.0.2-005 (since we don't have any other OS for that) go check /root/.my-sfs-scripts.

Hopefully it is now clearly to be told, what am I talking about and what is meant by using terms like "modular", "modular use" and "modular concept".
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

anikin
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012, 06:16

#36 Post by anikin »

mavrothal wrote:BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
This question has been bugging me for quite some time. I do not want/need this layer. I see it as redundant, as all my puppies run in pupmode=5 - no save file. Is there a way to remove it ... editing this part of init?

Code: Select all

##########################LOADING PUPPY FILES###########################
RAMSIZE=`free | grep -o 'Mem: .*' | tr -s ' ' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` #total physical ram (less shared video). 110405
CRYPTO=""
STATUS=0

#decide the mount-points...
#unionfs layers:            RW (top)      RO1             RO2              PUPMODE
#full install, flash drive: tmpfs         PDEV1                            3
#First boot (or pfix=ram):  tmpfs                         pup_xxx.sfs      5
#pup_save is a partition:   PDEV1                         pup_xxx.sfs      6
#ditto, but flash drive:    tmpfs         PDEV1           pup_xxx.sfs      7
#Normal running puppy:      pup_save.3fs                  pup_xxx.sfs      12
#ditto, but flash drive:    tmpfs         pup_save.3fs    pup_xxx.sfs      13
#Multisession cd/dvd:       tmpfs         folders(tmpfs2) pup_xxx.sfs      77
CREATETMPFS="";CREATEPDEV1="";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="";CREATEFOLDERS=""
case $PUPMODE in #w003 changed some save-layer to 'ro+wh' so that whiteouts files are recognised...
 3)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh";;
 5)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 6)  CREATEPDEV1="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 7)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 12) CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 13) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 77) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEFOLDERS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 *)  RDSH="yes";; #precaution.
esac

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#37 Post by sunburnt »

mikeb; Good points as usual. It certainly precludes the idea of SFS`s with groups of apps.
SFS files that are large groups of apps. would fill up ram with unused apps.
And to have each app. a separate SFS file makes for many layers in the union.
Aufs will do this, but I hardly think it`s very efficient. However AppDirs don`t pose this problem.

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#38 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote:Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why. For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.
I don't want to achieve anything
Then why take the trouble to change things?
There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).
Carried away again? :wink: If someone can't explain why something has to be changed, then I don't change. I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#39 Post by RSH »

MochiMoppel wrote:I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?
Just do what you want. I don't care about. I can live with and without any of your decisions related to Puppy Linux.
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why.
Obviously you can NOT read!

If you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what currently reading-, you would have noticed the following:

The link to the save file to sfs convertion thread (posted here) was not included because of it would be a main part of this here thread. It was a reply to nooby's question and I've stated:
For such things needed to be done, I do use my Personal Data SFS and Configuration SFS Manager. It is described here and here.
If you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what to read at these two linked posts-, you would have noticed the following:

I did presented this as an existing idea, which I would like to give away, to be developed by a developer, who would be able to turn this into a really useful solution. Not as a replacement for the complete or even parts of the save file functions.
... ... ... - and I don't see why.
To not to be offend, I will assume (as a positive to you): you must have been blind, that moment!
For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.
This first sentence was (markup added by me):
Me wrote:As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
This is just the intro sentence and it is also just the truth. I don't use a save file at all. That's what I wanted to be made clear at first. To let the people know, that I'm able to use much more applications with the smallest Operating Systems (in Size) compared to any other Puppy Linux OS.

And again: those two links where just included to give nooby a reply how I do solve what he needs to be saved usually into a save file. I have also mentioned the option of doing a remaster.
If I want such settings to be permanently in the OS, I'm just doing a remaster.
Why don't you complain about that?

Enough. I don't want to re-quote all of my postings and statements. Please, please: go away and stay away using save file and PET installs.

Thanks.

Sorry to all other people over here. The mean part follows right now!
Me wrote:To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.
This is a very good example for the differences of compressed and uncompressed sizes related to the previous question by MochiMoppel:
What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?
15 MB (uncompressed) * 1024 = 15,360 KB (uncompressed)

15,360 KB (uncompressed) : 1366 KB (compressed) = 11.244 (Factor)

---

30 MB (compressed) * 1024 = 30,720 KB (compressed)

30,720 KB (compressed) * 11.244 (Factor) = 345,415.68 KB (uncompressed)

345, 415.68 KB (uncompressed) : 1024 = 337,32 MB (uncompressed)

---

So, a 30 MB compressed file could even result (possibly) in 337 MB uncompressed files!
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#40 Post by mavrothal »

RSH wrote: Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?
There are hundreds of Linux/GNU distros out there developed by smart and capable persons, because each one covers a slightly different niche.
Does not make any sense to try to turn distro A to distro B. Just use distro B "as is" or as "base" for your system if it is closer to your ideas. Otherwise you are in for a lot of frustration and rediscovering.
But then again, that's all the fun :P
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#41 Post by RSH »

Hi.

For the misunderstandings that have come up here, I should have posted Information -now available at the second post- maybe much earlier.

So, just repeating: I have updated the second post of this here thread/topic.

Now hopefully anyone further interested and maybe here involved, will get a more "whole picture" of it.

Of course, anyone now will be able to check this out, using HIS FAVORITE PUPPY!

RSH
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#42 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote:
Me wrote:As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
This is just the intro sentence and it is also just the truth. I don't use a save file at all.
That wouldn't be of any interest if you wouldn't continue
RSH wrote:..there is too many postings on the forum, about problems with the use of a save file (Help, my save file is filling up, can't use XXX after installing YYY etc.pp.) followed by lots of pages of instructions, how to "fix" such.

This is boring and of course it doesn't really help to make people willing and able to change from Windows (or any other Linux OS) to Puppy Linux and to become a Puppy Linux Newcomer.

That's why I want to make a vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux
Never explained "problems" with the save file are clearly one cause for you to vote for a modular Puppy. You praise Lazy as a modular system. Lazy makes it hard to create a save file. My only question: why? I don't know how much you are involved in Lazy and if you are the right person to give an answer. If not, just say so. Your personal tricks to save your settings are irrelevant, as are mine ( I also don't use save files ), but I'm genuinely interested to know how the creators of Lazy expect a normal user to do it. If it's a good solution, I will adopt it.
Please, please: go away and stay away using save file and PET installs.
You should try harder to be respectful. I'm not a mosquito. I came here not for fun or to harass people but to get answers. Didn't work out.
Sorry to all other people over here. The mean part follows right now
Can't hardly get any meaner...

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#43 Post by mikeb »

Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?
Well some do ... the file structure / layering of the puppy we know now follows the slax way , its just how its implemented that differs.
On the other hand see what's happening in this thread.... not exactly productive when good ideas are getting lost but this is pretty typical and note very little activity in this forum alone reaches the main puppy releases.
Aufs will do this, but I hardly think it`s very efficient.
I suspect this notion comes from unionfs which slowed down considerably with only a few layers. I regularly have 20 to 40 sfs loaded by default and get no appreciable performance hit on pentium 3 machines which noticed the drag of the standard drive icons in puppy. I noticed mention of some problems with recent kernels and aufs ... not sure of the current situation as 2.6.33 is the newest I normally use.
I also have sfs as small as 200-300k in the set...one per app usually.
This question has been bugging me for quite some time. I do not want/need this layer. I see it as redundant, as all my puppies run in pupmode=5 - no save file. Is there a way to remove it ... editing this part of init?
Drifting away here...but you have to have some form of read/write layer for the system to work. Not having a save file layer on the other hand I find beneficial.

mike

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#44 Post by mikeb »

edit mail failure...

User avatar
oldyeller
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2011, 14:26
Location: Alaska

#45 Post by oldyeller »

This all sounds good, but how does one go about doing this type of system? How would you link to a Appdir or load more than 6 SFS?

If you load by the menu when needing a program, does it unload when it is closed? Are the SFS done automatically for loading and unloading and no need for SFS-load on the fly?

I know that seaside has done stuff with SFS files before.

How does a Appdir work? Do you have scripts to open the apps that are in it? And does the same principle work for a Dir with SFS?

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#46 Post by RSH »

@MochiMoppel

My personal tricks to save settings aren't a part of the Modular Concept.

I just linked this as an reply to nooby!

It is not relevant for this thread, because I can use this Modular Concept(and so the user does) also when using a personal storage file (save file).

Got it NOW?!?!?!

And by the way, just to keep you informed: there is no LazY Puppy Creators (as a multiple) - there is only one: ME.

You should have already know this, if you were able to read and to understand what currently reading.

And again: this here is not for LazY Puppy. Go complain in its EN Forum, if you would have anything to complain about it. Though, I doubt you would get any further answer from me.

This is my last reply to you in this here thread. To me, sorry I have to say this, you are now OUT!
mikeb wrote:I suspect this notion comes from unionfs which slowed down considerably with only a few layers. I regularly have 20 to 40 sfs loaded by default and get no appreciable performance hit on pentium 3 machines which noticed the drag of the standard drive icons in puppy. I noticed mention of some problems with recent kernels and aufs ... not sure of the current situation as 2.6.33 is the newest I normally use.
I also have sfs as small as 200-300k in the set...one per app usually.
Yes, I usually also do have around 30 to 40 SFS Modules loaded, without any noticeable result to Operating Systems performance.

I have SFS Modules from 11KB up to 300+ MB. The funny thing I have noticed so far: time to laod an SFS seems not really to make a difference, if the SFS is sized in KB or even in MB.

That's why I've suspected that there must be a difference between loading an SFS at boot up and loading an SFS via sfs_load.
On the other hand see what's happening in this thread.... not exactly productive when good ideas are getting lost but this is pretty typical and note very little activity in this forum alone reaches the main puppy releases.
Yeah, already noticed this. Though, there is no reasonable point for me to see, why this hasn't changed in those 10 Puppy Linux years.
oldyeller wrote:If you load by the menu when needing a program, does it unload when it is closed? Are the SFS done automatically for loading and unloading and no need for SFS-load on the fly?
If the SFS's application is a real binary, I can freely define if the SFS should be unloaded after its application is exited. Please note the onformation at second post, and there especially read the thread of multi-session CD/DVD (my solution, created for 8-bit). For the use of the Modular Concept, how I do prefer and suggesting it, the use of sfs_load is needed!

This Modular Concept is built on top of sfs_load and all its pretty comfort would get lost immediately, if there wouldn't be shinobar's sfs_load. Though, I'm currently using a little modified version to be able to load SFS from different locations (and not only from boot partition or boot directory). I'm convince by now, I would be able to create this also for the use without shinobar's sfs_load. But why should I try so?
How would you link to a Appdir or load more than 6 SFS?
To laod more than 6 SFS Modules (I assume, you do mean at boot up, when using a save file) also sfs_load can be used. Itself uses a file /etc/init.d/sfs_load for this.

While running the OS, shinobar's sfs_load generates mount point directories automatically for each SFS to load.

There is no need to link to AppDirs, because you can run them from every location you want to store it. But AppDirs aren't really a part of this here. It could be a nice addition, but I'm not an expert for this - still learning while doing some of this stuff (like the RoxApp Builder, which isn't a part of this here as well). If you want to know anything about AppDirs or RoxApps or Program Folders, go to RoxApp Builder thread in Puppy Projects Forum and do read my information over there. There are also some links to a few RoxApp Dirs for the use on un-unioned SFS Modules (I think, un-unioned means: not mounted to the pup_roX directories, instead mounted to /mnt or anywhere else).
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#47 Post by mikeb »

I think it was shinobars sfs load I looked at ..... as mentioned it or whatever it was did load to ram if there was enough space ...that would take longer the larger the file but the same would apply to one at boot.
If we are dealing with aufs itself I have noticed it can take a few seconds for files to propagate through the system when dealing with an sfs with thousands of files...the devx is a good example, but it probably takes longer for menus to sort out so its not a problem as such.

Just as an aside I am fiddling with the initrd at the moment and it takes 1.5 seconds to run the init script including loading a 94mb pup sfs to ram on a pentium 3.

Here's the module activate/deactivate script I have on puppy in use at the moment. I am a slob and should tart it up but it does the job.
Its in the right click rox menu and toggles load/unload.

Code: Select all

#! /bin/sh

## script to insert and remove sfs files.....for puppy kernel 2.6.21 and above seem fine with this..

MODULE="$1"
NAME="`basename $MODULE | tr ' ' '_' `"  ##remove spaces for later...easier life

if [ "`mount | grep "$NAME "`" = "" ]; then
	## insert module...note if mounted already will not try and insert...probably a good thing
	## TODO.....resize and add into tmpfs if enough room...or small....or the rest loaded .. hmmmm..
	##note slax only does this if inside the union....need test for this? 
	MODE="activate"
	#must remember to makes nodes if all used
	NEXT=$(losetup -f 2>/dev/null) 
	if [ "$NEXT" = "" ]; then
		NR=$(find /dev/loop* | cut -b 10- | sort -n | tail -1)
		NR=$(expr $NR + 1)
		NEXT=/dev/loop$NR
		mknod $NEXT b 7 $NR 2>/dev/null
	fi
	mkdir -p /initrd/$NAME
	mount-FULL -o loop -t squashfs "$MODULE" /initrd/$NAME
	busybox mount -t aufs -o remount,add:1:/initrd/$NAME=ro unionfs /
	if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
		#fixmenus
		touch /root/.config/xfce4/desktop/menu.xml
		[ "`pidof X`" != "" ]&& Xdialog --timeout 4 --msgbox "Inserted $NAME" 5 40
		echo "Inserted $NAME"
		exit
	fi
else
	MODE="deactivate"
	busybox mount -t aufs -o remount,del:/initrd/$NAME unionfs /
	busybox umount /initrd/$NAME
	rmdir /initrd/$NAME
	if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
		#fixmenus...do first before dialog as faster
		touch /root/.config/xfce4/desktop/menu.xml
		[ "`pidof X`" != "" ]&& Xdialog --timeout 4 --msgbox  "Removed $NAME" 5 40
		echo "Removed $NAME"
		exit
	fi
fi

[ "`pidof X`" != "" ]&& Xdialog --timeout 4 --msgbox "Unable to $MODE $NAME" 5 40
echo "Unable to $MODE $NAME"
note fixmenus is there but commented out as I have xfce4.
note 2...this mounts the sfs just under the rw layer which logic dictates it should be.

mike

dancytron
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed 18 Jul 2012, 19:20

#48 Post by dancytron »

I've mainly contributed by answering simple questions occasionally, but I've thought about this for awhile. I think to do what RSH is talking about, the first thing is to build an infrastructure that makes it accessible to mere mortals (as opposed to Woof, which is only accessible to real developers).

The first step is to produce a barebones main sfs file that only has what is necessary to install and run the system. Just the stuff to configure the hardware, a desktop, the Load SFS program, Remaster Script and Pupsaveconfig. That would be the base to allow creating a modular system. Pupsaveconfig lets you decide how to handle the save file. Load SFS lets you add modules to the system.

Then create another sfs that has setup utilities, including the PPM, Gparted, all the utilities to configure the desktop, all the utilities to create and edit pets and sfs files, etc etc. All the stuff to setup Puppy, as opposed to just use it.

Finally, you'd have a DevX sfs file that has the compiling tools just like it does now.

With these three pieces, you can then create sfs files to make a modular system, create pet files to install to save file (or use as a basis to remaster the main sfs file), use the PPM to install Ubuntu or Slackware packages to install to save file (or use to remaster the main sfs file), compile programs from the source etc.

It gives a lot of flexibility to create custom modular (or not modular) distributions without dealing with Woof.

Anyway, just a thought.

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#49 Post by RSH »

mikeb wrote:If we are dealing with aufs itself I have noticed it can take a few seconds for files to propagate through the system when dealing with an sfs with thousands of files...the devx is a good example, but it probably takes longer for menus to sort out so its not a problem as such.
Yes.

As far as I know, shinobar's sfs_load is mounting an AUFS, to load SFS Modules. Also I have noticed a -sometimes- huge delay until the sfs_load GUI to execute an application from the currently loaded SFS appears on the screen. I have noticed also, this is dependent to the WM in use.

My experiences:

- JWM needs sometimes to be refreshed manually (though, it is fast)
- IceWM is also fast and I did never ever need to refresh it manually
- Openbox is really fast, even for a full menu like I do have over here (currently 821 .desktop files in /usr/share/applications)

BUT:

- when FbPanel is used as the panel for Openbox these 821 .desktop files (menu entries) resulting in an huge delay
- this huge delay is related to FbPanel itself
- the code, producing this issue is to be found in /usr/sbin/fixmenus

Code: Select all

if (grep "openbox" /etc/windowmanager) then
	[ `which variconlinks` ] && variconlinks #100404 for my fbpanel pkg.
	[ `which tempicons` ] && tempicons
fi
- responsible line is: [ `which variconlinks` ] && variconlinks #100404 for my fbpanel pkg
- this line creates a huge amount of icons from all over the running OS for the FbPanel to use

Currently I don't have any other WM/Panel installed, than Openbox and Tint2. If loading my LP2_WindowManagers.sfs Openbox (the OS) will use automatically FbPanel instead of tint2. Therefor I have modified /usr/sbin/fixmenus to execute refresh/rebuild of Openbox menu at first - before any else WM/Panel is refreshed/rebuild.

So, while FbPanel is stiil updating its icons, I can run any newly added application from Openbox menu immediately.

Also, I don't use sfs_load as it is supposed to use. I do use it only as back end script, since I have my own GUI to load/unload SFS Modules and all the menu entries already built into the OS. So, there is no need to run /usr/sbin/fixmenus when loading an SFS by the use of sfs_load in back end (console) mode. That's why shinobar has introduced option --skip-fixmenus in sfs_load version 1.9 and above. Especially for the use of the SFS P.L.U.S. RunScripts!

Code I usually do use, to load any SFS Module:

Code: Select all

sfs_load --cli --skip-fixmenus --quiet "$LP2BDL/$SFS_file"
Code I usually do use, to unload any SFS Module:

Code: Select all

sfs_load --unload --cli --skip-fixmenus --quiet "$LP2BDL/$SFS_file"
$LP2BDL is current boot directory, like: /mnt/sdd1/LazY
$SFS_file is the SFS Module to load, like LP2_WindowManagers.sfs
Just as an aside I am fiddling with the initrd at the moment and it takes 1.5 seconds to run the init script including loading a 94mb pup sfs to ram on a pentium 3.
Mine is a bit slower than yours, since I've added some stuff to be able to load each SFS Module I want to load at boot up - just by an option to be placed in a boot menu entry in menu.lst (or even entered in console)

This

Code: Select all

lpextsfs=LP2_XorgHigh.sfs
will load the XorgHigh automatically at boot up. It goes straight to where the zdrv.sfs usually goes: /intird/pup_z.

However, I really don't care about the speed of booting the OS, if it has been done in 20, 40 or even 60 seconds etc.pp. since I'm usually brushing my teeth, washing my face, entering the bathroom or pulling off my clothes when returning to home, at such boot times. :lol:
Here's the module activate/deactivate script I have on puppy in use at the moment. I am a slob and should tart it up but it does the job.
Its in the right click rox menu and toggles load/unload.
Yes, I can load/unload SFS Modules by clicking it as well. Plus: I do have a Openbox menu Category (menu pipe), which offers to me all current loaded SFS Modules to be unloaded, when clicking its menu entry.

Sorry, but can't post an image at the moment, because I'm still using the MochiMoppelTest-called LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 EN version by using the created save file - still works, but this version hasn't included above named Openbox feature.
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#50 Post by RSH »

dancytron wrote:I've mainly contributed by answering simple questions occasionally, but I've thought about this for awhile. I think to do what RSH is talking about, the first thing is to build an infrastructure that makes it accessible to mere mortals (as opposed to Woof, which is only accessible to real developers).

The first step is to produce a barebones main sfs file that only has what is necessary to install and run the system. Just the stuff to configure the hardware, a desktop, the Load SFS program, Remaster Script and Pupsaveconfig. That would be the base to allow creating a modular system. Pupsaveconfig lets you decide how to handle the save file. Load SFS lets you add modules to the system.

Then create another sfs that has setup utilities, including the PPM, Gparted, all the utilities to configure the desktop, all the utilities to create and edit pets and sfs files, etc etc. All the stuff to setup Puppy, as opposed to just use it.

Finally, you'd have a DevX sfs file that has the compiling tools just like it does now.

With these three pieces, you can then create sfs files to make a modular system, create pet files to install to save file (or use as a basis to remaster the main sfs file), use the PPM to install Ubuntu or Slackware packages to install to save file (or use to remaster the main sfs file), compile programs from the source etc.

It gives a lot of flexibility to create custom modular (or not modular) distributions without dealing with Woof.

Anyway, just a thought.
Hi.

This sounds like you could be the one to get involved in development of my latest version of the SFS P.L.U.S.!

If you are interested in this, let me know.

RSH
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

Post Reply