grml-small - raise ISO-size?
Hi,
I'm busy working on grml-live¹, a framework (based on FAI²) which provides the possbility to build a grml-ISO with 1(!) single command (oh and live-initramfs has been integrated into grml basically as well already). Creating your very own grml version is pretty easy now.
http://grml.supersized.org/archives/263-grml-live-create-your-own-grml-ISO.h...
This framework might be the system behind grml 1.1, grml64 0.2 and grml-small 0.5 already and I think it's time to discuss the ISO-size limit of grml-small now. :)
Some history:
grml-small 0.1 started with 49MB total ISO-size, grml-small 0.2 had 56MB, grml-small 0.3 had 58MB and grml-small 0.4 has 60MB now.
So it's definitely growing (due to the new features of kernel and userland in every single release).
The main problem for the grml team so far was, to keep the ISO size of grml-small as small as possible but nevertheless provide all the software people wanted to see included. Another important drawback is the separate kernel version, which had to be maintained *additionally* to the main (non-small) grml-kernel.
Using grml-live we are able to build grml-small with one single command now. The resulting ISO for grml-small has a size of 133MB currently - though the ISO still provides some more software than grml-small 0.4 did (like python, aptitude,...) and even a full featured /usr/share/doc (24MB) plus the current grml-kernel (2.6.22-grml). So the 133MB ISO could be stripped down a little bit further (maybe to something like 125MB) without losing toooo much.
My suggestion therefore is to raise the ISO-size of grml-small to something like <=128MB (so it still fits on 128MB USB pens).
Pros:
* some more software could be included (and /usr/share/doc could be shipped as well maybe)
* as maintainenance for the grml-team is much easier, we would provide up2date grml-small versions always together with a new release of (full) grml
* use of same kernel version as with full grml -> installing additional Debian kernel packages not being available on the ISO yet (due to lack of space) is no problem furthermore
Cons:
* "grml toram" will last a little bit longer
* 64MB USB pens as well as the really small CDs aren't support anymore (though I recommend to use fast >=1GB USB pens for booting anyway nowadays ;-))
As grml-live will be available to the public soon and everyone might build his own grml-version ;-), everyone could build his own grml-small version anyway.
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"? I highly appreciate any feedback.
¹ http://grml.org/grml-live/ ² http://www.informatik.uni-koeln.de/fai/
regards, -mika-
Michael Prokop schrieb am Montag, den 17. September 2007:
Hi,
*snipped some very cool stuff*
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"? I highly appreciate any feedback.
I would recommend 200mb since the small CD-R have 200mb (not the businesscard one, the 'single' CD-R).
I guess that nowadays nearly everybody has usb sticks >= 256 Mb.
Just my 2 cents
Alex
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:31:44PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Michael Prokop schrieb am Montag, den 17. September 2007:
I would recommend 200mb since the small CD-R have 200mb (not the businesscard one, the 'single' CD-R).
I guess that nowadays nearly everybody has usb sticks >= 256 Mb.
I share this opinion, 200 MB should be the limit.
greets Jimmy
Andreas Gredler wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:31:44PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Michael Prokop schrieb am Montag, den 17. September 2007:
I would recommend 200mb since the small CD-R have 200mb (not the businesscard one, the 'single' CD-R).
I guess that nowadays nearly everybody has usb sticks >= 256 Mb.
I share this opinion, 200 MB should be the limit.
greets Jimm
So do I.
Best regards, Frank
As grml-live will be available to the public soon and everyone might build his own grml-version ;-), everyone could build his own grml-small version anyway.
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"? I highly appreciate any feedback.
well, life is a compromise. but technology is making our life easier every 18 months.... is it neccessary to reduce the size of the iso to an extreme? i personally prefer to have a slightly larger image and benefit from the larger selection of available software. a 128 MB usb stick costs less than 5 euro: http://geizhals.at/a51402.html quadrupple this size costs less than 6 euros: http://geizhals.at/a205930.html and the size of an mini-CDROM has been exceeded anyway .... so why make a huge effort in saving a few MB? my 5 c
ciao
FranZ
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:25:50PM +0200 or thereabouts, Michael Prokop wrote:
Hi,
I'm busy working on grml-live¹
.... Creating your very own grml version is pretty easy now.
http://grml.supersized.org/archives/263-grml-live-create-your-own-grml-ISO.h...
This framework might be the system behind grml 1.1, grml64 0.2 and grml-small 0.5 already and I think it's time to discuss the ISO-size limit of grml-small now. :) ....
Using grml-live we are able to build grml-small with one single command now.
.... My suggestion therefore is to raise the ISO-size of grml-small to something like <=128MB (so it still fits on 128MB USB pens).
As an end user only. I think that is a great idea. I've been mulling over how to build my own customised grml for a while now. Brilliant - you give me back my machine!
Best Wishes Moss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Prokop schrieb am 17.09.2007 23:25:
Hi,
My suggestion therefore is to raise the ISO-size of grml-small to something like <=128MB (so it still fits on 128MB USB pens).
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"? I highly appreciate any feedback.
regards, -mika-
Hi Mika,
I'd say it's OK to grow grml-small up to "~125MB". Just to make sure the old 128 MB USB sticks can be used :-)
I don't care about the price of a new 128/256 MB stick - on my 1 GB stick resides a a standard grml ;-), and I see no reason to use grml-small on a "big stick". And I see no reason to buy a new USB stick with such few capacity ;-). Either you have few capacity - then use grml-small. Or you have enough capacity - use grml.
Regards Werner
- -- Werner Flamme, Abt. WKDV Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ Permoserstr. 15 - 04318 Leipzig Tel.: (0341) 235-3921 - Fax (0341) 235-453921 http://www.ufz.de - eMail: werner.flamme@ufz.de
Moin,
-----snip-----
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"? I highly appreciate any feedback.
-----snap-----
I would say make it fit the size of the most used device for installing/carrying grml-small. If that's a 128MB stick then make it 128MB.
I don't care myself because I put it on a 700er CD-R anyway because even those machines without USB come with a CD-ROM device. And if not it's either embedded or to be disposed;-)
Have a nice day, Peter Schulze
Michael Prokop schrieb:
Cons:
- "grml toram" will last a little bit longer
Yes, sure, changing toram time from a few seconds to an infinite number of minutes is "a little bit longer" :)
For me, grml-small (which I put with several other bootable stuff onto a "normal" 700MB CD-R) is not about ISO size, it's about being able to "toram" it on a machine with as little as 128MB of physical RAM (yes, these do still exist...) and work with it (dd | gzip | netcat). I doubt this will work with a 125MB ISO image...
Anyway, if I am the only one who uses it for that reason (the absence of reactions on my suggestion some time ago to make a disk that can boot both grml and grml-small seems to suggest that), i can live with using grml-small 0.4 forever for this case (or remaster my own "grml-smaller" from time to time).
mihi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:25:50PM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
grml-small 0.1 started with 49MB total ISO-size, grml-small 0.2 had 56MB, grml-small 0.3 had 58MB and grml-small 0.4 has 60MB now.
So it's definitely growing (due to the new features of kernel and userland in every single release).
Yes, I see that with one crying and one smiling eye.
The main problem for the grml team so far was, to keep the ISO size of grml-small as small as possible but nevertheless provide all the software people wanted to see included. Another important drawback is the separate kernel version, which had to be maintained *additionally* to the main (non-small) grml-kernel.
I understand that, but I could live with "not the latest" and greatesta kernel in grml-small. Would the work load significantly decrease if you would only build the -small kernel for every fifth image you build? Or, can kernel maintenance maybe automated (for example by obtaining the -small .config file by scripting on the normal .config file)?
Using grml-live we are able to build grml-small with one single command now. The resulting ISO for grml-small has a size of 133MB currently - though the ISO still provides some more software than grml-small 0.4 did (like python, aptitude,...) and even a full featured /usr/share/doc (24MB) plus the current grml-kernel (2.6.22-grml). So the 133MB ISO could be stripped down a little bit further (maybe to something like 125MB) without losing toooo much.
I do not care about python, and with most of /var stripped out, aptitude is not useable anyway. I do not like the idea of having a larger grml iso at all, mostly because I'll lose the business card CD (although I have not used grml on a business card CD for at least two years now), and grml toram takes even more longer now. Additionally, low memory boxes lose the ability to use grml toram.
My suggestion therefore is to raise the ISO-size of grml-small to something like <=128MB (so it still fits on 128MB USB pens).
Sigh. If you think this is best for the project, go ahead.
Pros:
- some more software could be included (and /usr/share/doc could be shipped as well maybe)
That's a non-pro, it's a con. Grml-small's advantage is that it does not have ballast.
- use of same kernel version as with full grml -> installing additional Debian kernel packages not being available on the ISO yet (due to lack of space) is no problem furthermore
The current -small kernel is just fine.
As grml-live will be available to the public soon and everyone might build his own grml-version ;-), everyone could build his own grml-small version anyway.
I would probably do that, yes.
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"?
I don't like the idea too much.
Greetings Marc
Am Monday 17 September 2007 schrieb Michael Prokop:
So what's *your* opinion about "grml-small grows to ~125MB"? I highly appreciate any feedback.
For me grml-small never had to fit on some small storage.
Don't get me wrong, i want it to be small. But it's not exactely the size that counts for me, at least not like "it has to fit on <insert storage device>", but rather "it provides basic features, but not more"
So i'd say: allow it to grow slightly when needed, maybe eaven sacrifice a MB here and there if it makes maintainance easier, but don't add bloat just to fill it up to some new defined size limit.
Worf
participants (11)
-
Alexander Wirt -
Andreas Gredler -
Frank Lehmann -
Franz Lax -
Marc Haber -
Maurice McCarthy -
Michael Prokop -
Michael Schierl -
Peter Schulze -
Werner Flamme -
Wolfgang Scheicher