erik wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 04:01:35PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Here's the requirement for Uruguay NAND full situation. > > > > I need this fixed ASAP. > > > > - The XO must always boot up to sugar including allowing access to the > > journal. That is no matter the fullness of the NAND > > - If the NAND has less than nnMB (50?) free, warn the user that they are > > low on space. > > - Must be installable on 656 in the Uruguay configuration > > - Must not delete any user created files > > - Must not disable any activities or other functionality > > > > So far they have: > > - a dialog box which warns when you get low on space > > - Chris's script which allows deleting stuff automaticaly but probably > > user stuff > > > > What else they want, not sure... I will talk to Emliano ASAP and let you > > know. > > > > Erik will propose one solution (related to RamFS I believe). > > > > See: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/7587#comment:4 > > On boot, check NAND discomfort level. If high, use unionfs(4) to mount > a read/write tmpfs over top of a read-only jffs2 rootfs. Set unionfs > flags to enable file deletion from the 'ro' root partition (or if this > is impossible, mount the fs in another location to allow deletions). > Set a flag to tell olpc-session or Sugar to enter into a deletion > dialog. > > Benefits: > This solution theoretically allows all software to run an a NAND-full > machine. Thus students who arrive at school with a NAND-full machine > could still work with their XO through lessons and manage flash cleanup > as time is available. Requires minimal code-level changes to enable.
what happens when they fill up tmpfs while still working through lessons? the idea is intriguing, but it would have to be a limited mode of operation: i.e., no activity startup, please reboot soon. paul > > Drawbacks: > Working on this solution may distract from efforts to get our system to > boot cleanly on top of a read-only root fs. C. Scott and others have > suggested that we ultimately want to do this. > > Issues: > Currently unionfs is untested on the XO. I am waiting for a > unionfs-enabled kernel (currently building). Theoretically it will > work, as per every Linux livecd under the sun. > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
