| Author |
Message |
rmcellig
Joined: 19 Nov 2011 Posts: 737 Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Thu 20 Sep 2012, 07:34 Post subject:
|
|
Thanks Jasper. I will use that app on my Root directory to see if there is a culprit taking up gobs of space and post back.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
SFR

Joined: 26 Oct 2011 Posts: 573
|
Posted: Thu 20 Sep 2012, 07:34 Post subject:
|
|
| Colonel Panic wrote: | | A thought has occurred here. Is it possible to put the browser cache completely in RAM in such a way that way it it doesn't burden the save file but flushes itself completely when Puppy is switched off? |
I might be wrong, but isn't /tmp kept in RAM?
This one could be an option, too: simple GUI ramdisk script
Greetings!
_________________ [O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource
Omnia mea mecum porto.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Jasper

Joined: 25 Apr 2010 Posts: 889 Location: England
|
Posted: Thu 20 Sep 2012, 09:35 Post subject:
|
|
Hi SFR,
Firstly, thank you very much for your excellent LargeFileFinder pet.
Then. thank you for your link just above re /mnt/ramdisk, however I don't fully understand how the ramdisk works.
I can download files to it and copy (or move) folders and filies to it and I understand they will be lost on a ramdisk unmount or a full reboot/exit.
My Linux Portable version of QtWeb browser and all its subsidiary files are stored in a folder I named QtWeb. It was easy to copy the QtWeb folder to /mnt/ramdisk and then run QtWeb from within it, but htop showed normal RAM usage - i.e. there was no saving of "standard" RAM.
My attempt to save "standard" RAM by running QtWeb portable from /mnt/ramdisk seems to be an experiment far beyond the realms of probable success. However. if you have time to hint how the /mnt/ramdisk might best be used (in addition to your cache type suggestion) that would be much appreciated.
My regards
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
SFR

Joined: 26 Oct 2011 Posts: 573
|
Posted: Thu 20 Sep 2012, 10:49 Post subject:
|
|
Hey Jasper.
Hmm, I don't really know why htop doesn't want to include ramdisk in its RAM stats...perhaps because it's seen as a filesystem, not a part of actual RAM..?
To see actual size and usage of the ramdisk, I use:
Also:
seems to be more accurate than htop.
As for usage hints for ramdisk, it's hard to me to think of anything more than saving space on a savefile/disk by putting temporary files into it...but, for example, such a ramdisk could be useful for operations that need a lot of disk reads/writes.
Using RAM would be a lot faster in such cases...
PS. I'm glad you like LFF - thanks! &
Greetings!
_________________ [O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource
Omnia mea mecum porto.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
disciple
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 6199 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu 20 Sep 2012, 16:55 Post subject:
|
|
I recommend treesize.
_________________ DEATH TO SPREADSHEETS
- - -
Classic Puppy quotes
- - -
Beware the demented serfers!
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
rmcellig
Joined: 19 Nov 2011 Posts: 737 Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Sat 22 Sep 2012, 20:53 Post subject:
|
|
Here is my latest update. I had to go back to using Ubuntu 12.04 because my save file which is now a little more than 4GB in size is still showing red. When I go to find out what is taking up all the space I find files and folders totalIng wrong 160MB. Shouldn't that leave me over 3GB of free savefile space?
Is there a way I can create a partition on my HD and make that my save file? I could make it 15 to 30GB in size. This way my savefile will always show green instead of red and without all the warnings to free up space or increase the size of the save file.
There is a reason I always seem to go back to Puppy Linux. I love the simplicity, speed and the look and feel of it. If I can get this savefile issue resolved once and for all without having to do a full install of puppy and staying with a frugal install, I will be beyond happy!!
Thanks again for all the help. I have another issue regarding puppy that I think I will put in another thread.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
rmcellig
Joined: 19 Nov 2011 Posts: 737 Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
Posted: Sat 29 Sep 2012, 09:02 Post subject:
|
|
I decided to do a full install of Puppy Linux 5.2.8 on my Dell 4500S because it was driving me crazy always having to adjust the save file and make symlinks from the Root directory to an area outside the Root directory. I tried cleaning up my Root directory but I was still getting orange or red indicators instead of green.
So now with a full install I don't have to worry about that anymore. Too bad because I liked the flexibilty of having a Savefile but didn't want to constantly keep an eye on my root directory and move stuff around to free up space in the savefile even though I wasn't using up that much space. Still don't understand that if I have a save file of let's say 512MB and I am getting red indicators only using up about 130-160MB, where is the difference going?
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Colonel Panic

Joined: 16 Sep 2006 Posts: 1235
|
Posted: Mon 01 Oct 2012, 04:39 Post subject:
|
|
| SFR wrote: | | Colonel Panic wrote: | | A thought has occurred here. Is it possible to put the browser cache completely in RAM in such a way that way it it doesn't burden the save file but flushes itself completely when Puppy is switched off? |
I might be wrong, but isn't /tmp kept in RAM?
This one could be an option, too: simple GUI ramdisk script
Greetings! |
Thanks, I'll look into it.
Cheers,
CP .
_________________ Pentium III/866 Coppermine, 512 MB of RAM, 30 GB hard drive running Puppy Diamond 5.28 and Puppy Wary 5.3.92.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
proebler
Joined: 24 Jan 2012 Posts: 52 Location: TAS
|
Posted: Tue 02 Oct 2012, 06:29 Post subject:
|
|
@ Colonel Panic
Would setting the browser's cache to zero be a solution for you?
cheers
proebler
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
|