[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: More RAM - a bad trend for m68k debian



On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:05:25AM +0100, Christian Brandt wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
> 
> >Hmm. How about something that uses libparted which just checks whether
> >any "useful" partitions have already been created, prompts the user
> >whether it's okay to use those partitions, and pulls in the partitioner
> >if it's not? I'd think such an application would not require as much RAM
> >as the full-blown partitioner, though I'm not sure.
> 
>  Why not just call good'n'old /sbin/fdisk in case of memory problems or 
> offer it as an alternative? It is perfectly happy with 500-1500kB and 
> superior to most alternatives which would require partitioning and 
> installing in another system or use multiple rescue-systems in odd 
> enviroments to tame the pain of low mem.

We have a d-i package which does this called partitioner, but it's
effectively unmaintained. My personal goals for m68k is to keep the
mainline installer working on it, however slowly. 

>  Another option would be a totally reduced rescue system with not more 
> than a shell, some basic network- and setup-tools and then require the 
> use of the "install debian to a sub-directory-mountpoint" from the 
> installation manual. Sure, thats a rather rough approach but ONE single 
> and flexible rescue disk as a last fallback isn't too bad in my books.
 
d-i has a rescue option, although I haven't played with it yet.

>  That still wouldn't increase performance of the final OS on old 
> systems but at least one could install Debian and then decide if it is 
> usefull.

I don't really have much complaint about the performance of the final
OS, but all the m68k machines I use have greater than 80MB of RAM and
are 040 or better.

For those interested in looking at the current lowmem implementation,
that would be in packages/lowmem.

We could sure use help with d-i (and gcc for that matter).

-- 
Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!
<stephen@marenka.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: