low end linux
in [Linux Help]
|
From: F8BOE on 25 Jan 2010 13:34 philo wrote: > > I had posted a while back concerning setting up some low-end Linux > machines.I now have several p-II 333mhz with 128 megs of RAM > > They will be for a non-profit organization short on funds. The machines > will be used by the members > strictly for "surfing" the net insure the "work" machines do not get > tampered with. > > I've tried Damn Small Linux and it does the job... > except it did not survive an important test: > What happens if someone turns the power switch off while the machine is > running? > > > Even if using ext3 (rather than ext2) the system > fails to boot and fsck must be run manually. I tried it a number of > times to confirm and have decided that this will not be a satisfactory > solution...and got the same results with Puppy Linux. > > I did try xubuntu and it recovers fine from a bad > shut down...but the machines are too low end to run it properly. > > > The closest I've come so far to getting something that works right is > Vector Linux... > not sure if the members will like logging in manually ...plus > the only way to shut the machine down is by > logging in as root or "sudo" from the command line. > > Suggestions welcome Hello, Well, at least, every distro would do the job until YOU decide what will be installed... 128MB RAM, even Gnome will come too short; XFCE 4 would do the job, IceWM would do it too and LXDE also. So the world is open to you. I'd prefer Mandriva because of the MCC, a genious application which gathers all the important administration tools in one application; and which is desktop environnement independent in the distro. Many people swear that K/X/Ubuntu should be the best... But for administrative tasks, it's a real bullsh...t to cope with! At least there's nothing like THE REAL Debian, which can be installed from five 1.44 MB floppies. Or you can always use the very practical smartbootmanager floppy to launch your favourite distro from a CD-ROM drive. Ciao @+
From: Moe Trin on 25 Jan 2010 14:51 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux, in article <rijpl5pq2jctnirrv7e65m6u24beenjbgh(a)4ax.com>, Grant wrote: >(Moe Trin) wrote: >> J.O. Aho wrote: >>>There are other file systems to use, I do recommend reiserfs (version >>>3.6), >>Is anyone supporting/maintaining that? >It's being supported in the kernel, they're doing more locking stuff >(remove BKL) on reiserfs3 for 2.6.33. I still prefer reiserfs3 for >unexpected power fail performance, auto-replay on mount, none of the >fsck nonsense ext3 wants ;) Though I doubt reiserfs4 will fly. I'm not the file system expert, but I know it was rejected by our company evaluators. The problems they were concerned with was the demonstrated lack of recoverability in certain conditions. I've also heard much anecdotal evidence from others. I've seen/heard reports that XFS is better in that regard. On the other hand, my home systems are mainly ext3, and I can't say that I've run into problems with it. Old guy
From: Grant on 25 Jan 2010 15:34 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:51:48 -0600, ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux, in article ><rijpl5pq2jctnirrv7e65m6u24beenjbgh(a)4ax.com>, Grant wrote: > >>(Moe Trin) wrote: > >>> J.O. Aho wrote: > >>>>There are other file systems to use, I do recommend reiserfs (version >>>>3.6), > >>>Is anyone supporting/maintaining that? > >>It's being supported in the kernel, they're doing more locking stuff >>(remove BKL) on reiserfs3 for 2.6.33. I still prefer reiserfs3 for >>unexpected power fail performance, auto-replay on mount, none of the >>fsck nonsense ext3 wants ;) Though I doubt reiserfs4 will fly. > >I'm not the file system expert, but I know it was rejected by our >company evaluators. The problems they were concerned with was the >demonstrated lack of recoverability in certain conditions. I've also >heard much anecdotal evidence from others. I've seen/heard reports >that XFS is better in that regard. On the other hand, my home systems >are mainly ext3, and I can't say that I've run into problems with it. Yes, ext3 can be recovered, say goodbye to data on a corrupted reiserfs3 FS. OTOH reiserfs resize grow and shrink work reliably, and the FS has very good tolerance for unexpected powerfail (no UPS here), but no data loss due to powerfail aver several years. I switched to reiserfs3 back years ago when ext3 was locking up on a box here, no problems with it since[1], and I like the replay on mount concept far better than ext3's slow fsck. [1] Lost 200GB on two drives once when I ignored the mkreiserfs warning about rebooting after playing with partition tables. Spent following week restoring from CDs :-/ Never made that mistake again :o) I still prefer reiserfs3 when installing. But if I was really concerned about data being recoverable I'd go for ext3. I don't generate much 'precious' data, last time I lost some files I emailed a friend to request copies emailed back. Most of my stuff is on web site too (open source), so it's backed up there. XFS is supposed to be very good on quality hardware, but it requires UPS for reliability as much FS 'state' is held in memory to gain the performance. I've not used it though. Looking forward to btrfs filesystem which is being developed by one of the guys who stabilised reiserfs3 whilst at Suse. As reiserfs3 developer Hans abandoned the project before it was production ready. Suse put out a good document somewhere describing why they no longer default to reiserfs3, it's mostly about too few developers holding the detailed knowledge on how the thing works. Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au
From: Martin on 25 Jan 2010 15:38 philo wrote: > I went with Vector Linux 6 and rfs and all is working well now glad to hear. The difference between distros MAY be that Slackware (and hence Vector?) runs an fsck -a as part of the startup procedure. In case you want to try ext3 again, make sure you mount ext3 partitions with "data=ordered". In your particular case, you might even go "data=journal", since write access should be fairly small. Do not believe the false prophets who claim that a minimal performance gain is worth the trade-off of a volatile file system. Martin
From: philo on 25 Jan 2010 16:51
Martin wrote: > philo wrote: > >> I went with Vector Linux 6 and rfs and all is working well now > > glad to hear. The difference between distros MAY be that Slackware (and > hence Vector?) runs an fsck -a as part of the startup procedure. > > In case you want to try ext3 again, make sure you mount ext3 partitions with > "data=ordered". In your particular case, you might even go "data=journal", > since write access should be fairly small. > > Do not believe the false prophets who claim that a minimal performance gain > is worth the trade-off of a volatile file system. > > Martin > In general I've not had problems with ext3 but in the minimal install version of Linux it did not cut it. Now that I've got the three machines all setup and ready to go... I am going to see how Vector Linux runs on a P-1 Though as I've mentioned here before I like to put old machines to use if at all possible... I do draw the line some where and if I have to send a 486 or P-1 to the recyclers... I can live with that ! |