Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

These recent posts has me looking.......I have a Bionic64-8.0 (mostly retired) at 96 G, KLV-Airedale-RT at 90 G a rapidly growing instance1 and instance2 of F96-CE_4 and the not released F96-CE_5. A main work platform NoblePup64-FR which is a FirstRibIt assembled NoblePup64 from the woof-CE artifacts that has a 50upper_changes at 32 G and upper_changes 94 G bringing 126 G total.

My KLV-Spectr-RT for audio video work is a light =<20 G.

on a instance1 of a F96-CE_4 using XAMPP-8.3+ for a complete web server stack to work on phpBB code with an exact copy of this production forum running a light 12 G !! (surprising) Fossapupsave folder

wiak wrote:

Well, shock, horror... 87 GB!!!

Extreme! May be interesting for you to know what makes it so big, what sort of stuff is inside, e.g. lots of downloaded files, e.g. large videos, repositories, OS builds, games perhaps, or cached files, or perhaps lots of compiling stuff done.

perhaps lots of compiling stuff done.

In my case yes.....and audio video stuff. Mostly the frameworks and plugins add weight. Object detection recognition weights file models are big. Building distro's with woof-CE locally and kernel compilation done locally....the list goes on.

rockedge wrote: Wed Aug 07, 2024 4:41 pm

perhaps lots of compiling stuff done.

In my case yes.....and audio video stuff. Mostly the frameworks and plugins add weight. Object detection recognition weights file models are big. Building distro's with woof-CE locally and kernel compilation done locally....the list goes on.

Wow.

And I thought when my 07rootfs resquashes of PFI upper_changes grow to over 2GB that I'm being egregiously careless about bloat.

That's one reason I symlink so much data, configs, and plugins between OS's, and one of the reasons I find running as 'regular user' as opposed to root quite difficult.

Let's face it, hard drives tend to be huge nowadays, but we are all experts at filling them up anyway. At least wd_multi does not itself add to that burden in itself - a couple of kB each instance until you start working on them of course and filling them up too

I note some comments posted elsewhere that we are not focussing enough on reducing RAM and CPU in terms of efficiency. I can only wonder, if that is really so important in the scheme of things, why the mainstream distros that most people actually use out there in the greater Linux world are not(???) doing that fine tuning as part of the overall Linux development process. I don't myself actually like pretending I have any kind of kernel expert capability in such matters; I would admit freely that if I mucked with kernel tuning or RAM tuning matters I would no doubt be messing with the overall Linux design, which was done by people far more expert than myself. Not saying I couldn't reduce a few MB of RAM here or there or even a few CPU cycles, but not worth the effort in my overall lacking ambitions in that fine grained detail pursuit.

Still I'm happy that someone is so inclined. Next time I drag my Pentium M out of the cupboard for a laugh I'll see if anything can still run on it. In my tests I don't notice a terrible amount of difference on my own computers (which are neither very new or old) no matter which forum distro I use (aside from desktop environment slow down effects and a of course the plus or minus a few hundred MB of RAM consumed on initial boot, which nevertheless effects my computer usage not at all in meaningful practice.........?????!!!! Yes, I know it is another hobby matter for some).

Nevertheless, maybe someone should test all the distros and see just how badly we all do in that nitty gritty of find grained efficiency. How much RAM do we waste as say a percentage of all the RAM available on our machines, and similarly for CPU. I just can't be bothered though and care more about flexibility, reliability and stability overall. I did find some recent KDE Plasma Wayland-based distros surprisingly nippy compared to what I remembered with KDE on X, but that's a different matter.

Apparently, there is something wrong with similarity, and thus a big push for 'uniqueness' - maybe we should move to BSD from Linux and GNU??? Well, seems everyone in the world should be using EasyOS, FatDog, or Vanilla Dpup because of uniqueness value if that is why you use a computer(?). I almost feel left out, because I instinctively like 'standards' and the reliability and certainty that helps to achieve.

@geo_c with more symlink-ing I could reduce massively, but with the stuff I am doing it's really important to have separate copies. Due to the potential to really break something very high and most likely. With compiling packages it can have unexpected results when symlink'ed libraries and components are involved, especially when kernel building.

For a fast responsive web browsing a KLV-Spectr in a 10 instance setup with some instances running exclusively in RAM2 is fun to drive. Can take 2500 K frugal install and in RAM2 only web browse and reach sensitive official portals and sites nicely and keep a very compact upper_changes under 1 G

I made a wd_multi setup of NoblePup64-FR where I have instance's that are 6477 bytes in total size for a complete frugal install.

With symlink-ing most packages from across the collection of frugal KLV and Puppy Linux installations these remain tiny and offer the complete NoblePup64 experience in a FirstRib initrd.gz