Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-03-07 Thread Wouter Verhelst
Hi Adam, (long time no see!) On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 04:13:56PM +, Adam Conrad wrote: > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:00:31AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:26:48AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > > You could obviously just fall back to using the full .so in

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-03-07 Thread Adam Conrad
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:00:31AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:26:48AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > You could obviously just fall back to using the full .so in the case of > > initramfs generation. If we can detect that the libc generated is unsuitable, then

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-28 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:26:48AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:05:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > This is not really a big deal in the case of d-i, since first, when > > things fail, they fail for everyone who uses the same image, and second, > > if the installe

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:05:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Don't know, but I'm not sure that's a very good idea. The library > reduction as implemented by mklibs is a bit of a kludge IMO, which seems > to fail every so often for one of our architectures, because that > architecture's ABI us

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-28 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 01:21:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:02:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > The reason would be size. I don't see anything else there. > > > For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size > > can make a real

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-27 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > When 100 nodes all want to talk to the one bootserver then that one poor > port will be overflown. With switches you won't have collisions like in > the old days when they would combine exponentially but you still get > slowdowns. Add more switches. Add more network c

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-21 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Philipp Kern writes: > On 2010-02-20, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size >> can make a real difference. When you turn the cluster on it is not just >> one system downloading an extra meg but 100+ nodes. That largely >> increase

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-21 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Feb 20, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size >> can make a real difference. When you turn the cluster on it is not just >> one system downloading an extra meg but 100+ nodes. That largel

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-20 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:02:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The reason would be size. I don't see anything else there. > For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size > can make a real difference. When you turn the cluster on it is not just > one system downl

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-20 Thread Philipp Kern
On 2010-02-20, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size > can make a real difference. When you turn the cluster on it is not just > one system downloading an extra meg but 100+ nodes. That largely > increases the network collisions, err

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-20 Thread Michael Banck
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:02:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Tokarev writes: > > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> I googled a bit and found this old mail about a klibc only initramfs: > >> > >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-20 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Feb 20, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size > can make a real difference. When you turn the cluster on it is not just > one system downloading an extra meg but 100+ nodes. That largely > increases the network collisions, errors

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-20 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Michael Tokarev writes: > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I googled a bit and found this old mail about a klibc only initramfs: >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/07/msg00400.html >> >> I would really like to do this and it

Re: klibc only initramfs

2010-02-20 Thread Michael Tokarev
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Hi, > > I googled a bit and found this old mail about a klibc only initramfs: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/07/msg00400.html > > I would really like to do this and it has been close to 4 years since > that mail. But it doe

klibc only initramfs

2010-02-19 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Hi, I googled a bit and found this old mail about a klibc only initramfs: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/07/msg00400.html I would really like to do this and it has been close to 4 years since that mail. But it doesn't look like there has been much progress or not in the