| Re: [cooking] booting loram-cdrom on usb ( was: [cooking] various boot modes, successes and failures) |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/slitaz Archives
]
> On 28/12/2010 19:51, Philippe Lelédy wrote:
>> I will try "keep-loram" which means "don't copy roofs.gz in RAM".
>>
>
> It does work.
>
> cat /proc/cmdline
> initrd=../initfs-lz-330LC keep-loram loram=LABEL=p1-liveOSs
>
> mount
> rootfs on / type rootfs (rw)
> tmpfs on /mnt type tmpfs (rw,relatime,size=454112k)
> /dev/sdb3 on /mnt/.cdrom type ext2 (ro,relatime,barrier=1,data=writeback)
> /dev/loop0 on /mnt/.fs.gz type squashfs (ro,relatime)
> none on / type aufs (rw,relatime,si=3eb61ca6)
>
> sudo losetup
> /dev/loop0: 0 /mnt/.cdrom/rootfs.gz
>
> At last, I have now, with only one system, the choice, like I had with
> Slax: if enough RAM, compressed FS is copied in RAM, if not it's remains
> on USB. Without this feature, it would have been impossible to add more
> packages.
The root filesystem is *always* writeable thanks to aufs.
> Next feature request: this is like loram-ram is no more useful because
> loram-smallcdrom provides the same functionality + the ability to run
> from the usb; perhaps it's time to merge with the third way of booting:
> it should be possible to expand the squashfs.xz and obtains the same
> functionality as RAM mode. Should unsquashfs be more expensive than
> unlzma done by kernel.
Why ? / is writeable and files under / look *exactly* like a filesystem
uncompressed by then kernel unlzma.
> BTW, why speak of loram as flavors ?. They are not flavors, but
> variations about the way to use storage.
Because pre 3.0 loram was flavors only
(http://hg.slitaz.org/flavors/file/tip, squashed /usr + optional aufs).
Now we have tazlitobox flavors too (squashed / + aufs).
-pascal
---
SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/