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 Wed 22 Nov 2017, 20:27
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Performance differences between frugal vs full install?
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 8 [109 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, ..., 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 2187
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 02:03    Post subject:  Performance differences between frugal vs full install?  

Any difference if run fully in RAM? What about full install on linux partition vs frugal install (anywhere) with swapfile and limited resources (in instances not fully running in RAM).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 05:26    Post subject:  

full will start quicker and use a bit less ram.

frugal will have apps opening faster if the sfs loads to ram.

the rest is down to the usual...ease of fixing/using sfs/quirks and so on.

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 2187
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 07:59    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
full will start quicker and use a bit less ram.

frugal will have apps opening faster if the sfs loads to ram.

the rest is down to the usual...ease of fixing/using sfs/quirks and so on.

mike


Full does not load totally to RAM (if enough available)? Wary Puppy is slightly sluggish on my old 384Mb RAM machine (windows XP is faster). Also, it hardly ever uses my swapfile which is on fat32 partition (as is the SFS and savefile). So apparently a full install will be of no significance in this situation? Better to stick with windows then. To think that I ran windows xp on only 128Mb RAM at one stage and it was still workable. What an operating system, so much more practical and efficient than the new, bloated rubbish with popups whenever you want to do something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 08:10    Post subject:  

yes full does not load the system files to ram at all.

With that spec I doubt if you would notice any difference plus puppy has some joke funnies with full install...

XP was the best on my old 1996 kayak partly because it had the correct video driver and linux did not support it (cirrus...funny really thats the QEMU vid card)

64MB ram was ok on windows too..... all this 256/512 ram for linux seems a bit vista like....


fun and games
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 2187
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 10:19    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
yes full does not load the system files to ram at all.

With that spec I doubt if you would notice any difference plus puppy has some joke funnies with full install...

XP was the best on my old 1996 kayak partly because it had the correct video driver and linux did not support it (cirrus...funny really thats the QEMU vid card)

64MB ram was ok on windows too..... all this 256/512 ram for linux seems a bit vista like....


fun and games

Well, puppy 5 starts to get sluggish when you only have 256MB RAM in fact with 384MB RAM it's still a bit sluggish. So i think one can safely say you need at least 512MB RAM and more if you want to run puppy 5 and later without a bit of lag time. I don't know if this was the intention when puppy started off to consume so much system resources? It now seems to get closer and closer to the bigger operating systems in terms of "resource hungriness" which leaves the question whether it's going to stay a viable alternative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 4013
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 11:57    Post subject:  

never underestimate the speed loss due to continual decompression of sfs text files, Unlike other distros puppylinux is mostly scripts masquerading as programs Wink squashfs is VERY SLOW with text due to lack of block cache and the way it forces the text type files together as a mega file for compression gains. A tiny script is grouped with other tiny scripts and compressed as a block. Each time called it decompresses the entire mega block of text just to return a tiny script. Add the push to segregated scripts into function call blocks in a different script that is called by the first script.. I once readup on HOW TO CORRECT THIS but lost the link and can't talk the developers into trying this method. The correction is to loop mount a block based filesystem like ext3 as a single file into a sfs. the squashfs contains one file, a ext3 filesystem. This method provides a read ahead cache of already decompressed files.
Along with this method is using a fast decmpression type. Currently its xz, but gz style is faster and doesn't block multicore AMD CPUs into single core like xz does.
Ok this is getting a bit long in the tooth. There is another method like frugal install but not as frugal on harddrive space. Use squashfs as just packed only not compressed or better move all files into a savefile ext4 etc.
But for some reason developers do not directly support this but should, sfs is only 1/3 the size of orginal files. so for a savefile in the 1G range would comfortable fit a fat frugal install without the continual decompression.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 4013
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 12:24    Post subject:  

@nic.. Current or methods used by BK before his retirement can't live much longer and I believe the rash of less then stable late generation of wolf based puppylinux are due to internal timeouts of non responsive scripts IE takes too long to decompress those thousands of tiny scripts and the scripts that call the other scripts repeatively.
There is NO error trapping in linux for scripts faults due to not being returned to start a file that is not yet ready to read.

HOWEVER the way BK is doing it now with his hobby post-retirements Quirky builds corrects this issue.

So at this time only Fatdog64 with a kernel flag asked by me and BK newest Quirky will run in RAM uncompressed. And its like greased lighting... Confused

the fat frugal type install ( decompressed within a file ) on the harddrive would free up RAM and speed up puppylinux spins and remove the tiny script slowing down the system overall. I feel this is the best direction that puppylinux should go.. hope those main developers can add the needed code in wolf start scripts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 4013
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 12:51    Post subject:  

there is a forum member making and remaking a special remaster script ( program lol ) I tried to step up and add my goodies ( I have made such systems for my self, It tests those changes above but its a complex task done by hand )
But he went into a teardown and rebuild effort just as I wanted to work with him. Shocked

So hopefully with his tools a fat frugal methodology could be an option. But that is a stop gap. The best way to do it is BK new way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rufwoof

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 2163

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 14:53    Post subject:  

Ted Dog wrote:
There is another method like frugal install but not as frugal on harddrive space. Use squashfs as just packed only not compressed or better move all files into a savefile ext4 etc.

Thanks Ted

Just tried a HDD based frugal (ram boot, no save file used) remastered with no compression i.e. -noI -noD -noF mksquashfs parameters, with the puppy sfs merged into initrd and initrd uncompressed. Boot time seems a little slower (1 second or so) and general operation seems quicker (so fast anyway its difficult to be sure). I do like how it remasters in seconds.
dt.jpg
 Description   
 Filesize   72.83 KB
 Viewed   583 Time(s)

dt.jpg

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec 2014, 16:51    Post subject:  

sort of drifted into another topic though must say lzma/xz does slow things down noticeable for both compressing and decompressing.. We made some gz only builds with varying compression levels and the difference was definitely marked... perhaps less zealous space reduction would be a simple step to take.

I did make a save option for pup that basically installed the sfs into a large save file and ran without layering at all like a full...but installation resembled a frugal...ie any file system as host...first tested in puppy 2.12.

Worked rather well with the usual need to allow enough space for growth of the system.

I am sure there are technical reasons for scripts being handled slower than optimum but I also find many of those pup scripts are painfully inefficient in themselves...Ie better scripting could result in some large speed ups (I get lucid booting 4 times faster for example.)

Non of this affects the apparent need for magnitudes more ram for the running system however its put together though.

mike

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 4013
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu 25 Dec 2014, 01:24    Post subject:  

@rufwoof

could you post the command used I have not rebuilt mine in a while and would have a long time finding my code. check the .history file its easy to cut and paste from it. Also if you would post it as text within a code section so we can cut and paste online.
Yes I had done this for the fast remaster in the early days of developing DVD multisession. You can recompress the initrd and I think people would be amazed how well it looks just like older method puppylinux size included.
That was the direction I wanted fatdog64 to go with the expand option.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rufwoof

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 2163

PostPosted: Thu 25 Dec 2014, 02:28    Post subject:  

In /usr/sbin/remasterpup2 I added/changed

Code:
COPTIONS="-noI -noD -noF"


to add the no compression parameters

... and later ...

Code:
squash / $WKGMNTPT/puppylivecdbuild/$PUPPYSFS ${COPTIONS} -e /etc /proc /initrd /var /tmp /archive /mnt /root $TOPPLCDB $ANOTHER_REMOVE $DIRHOME $DIRSYS $DIRLOST $TOPPUPSFS $DIRDEVSNDFILES $DIRDEVUDEV $ICONCACHE   icon-theme.cache 121021


and for the script to make initrd.gz into initrd with pup sfs installed

Code:
#!/bin/sh
mkdir newdir
cd newdir
zcat ../initrd.gz | cpio -i -H newc -d
cp -p ../pup*.sfs .
find | cpio -o -H newc > ../initrd
cd ..
rm -rf ./newdir

Last edited by rufwoof on Thu 25 Dec 2014, 03:54; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 4013
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu 25 Dec 2014, 03:35    Post subject:  

cool thanks...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Thu 25 Dec 2014, 05:10    Post subject:  

I apologise if my reply was tooo simple Very Happy

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rerwin


Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1844
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Thu 25 Dec 2014, 14:31    Post subject:  

rufwoof wrote:
In /usr/sbin/remasterpup2 I added/changed

Code:
COPTIONS="-noI -noD -noF"


to add the no compression parameters

... and later ...

Code:
squash / $WKGMNTPT/puppylivecdbuild/$PUPPYSFS ${COPTIONS} -e /etc /proc /initrd /var /tmp /archive /mnt /root $TOPPLCDB $ANOTHER_REMOVE $DIRHOME $DIRSYS $DIRLOST $TOPPUPSFS $DIRDEVSNDFILES $DIRDEVUDEV $ICONCACHE   icon-theme.cache 121021
This seems like a desirable update for lupu 5.2.8.7 to improve performance in low-spec PCs, with little impact for those with 512 MB or more. I am reluctant to mess with the initrd file, so would like your opinion on confining the improvement to only the squash file.

mikeb wrote:
I am sure there are technical reasons for scripts being handled slower than optimum but I also find many of those pup scripts are painfully inefficient in themselves...Ie better scripting could result in some large speed ups (I get lucid booting 4 times faster for example.)
If you made changes to the lucid scripts, I would like to consider including them in an update to 5.2.8.7, assuming you feel that to be reasonable.
Richard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 8 [109 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, ..., 6, 7, 8 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
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: 0.0663s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0065s) ][ GZIP on ]