Re: Minimum install size
Theo de Raadt writes: > Yoshihiro Kawamata wrote: > > > From: Janne Johansson > > Subject: Re: Minimum install size > > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:09:49 +0200 > > > > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. > > > > My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is > > appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and > > "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. > > No, it is optimistic oversell by the faq authors > > It should be realistic & accurate, or it should say nothing at all. To be fair the FAQ does cover itself by saying that squeezing into 512MB is "something for advanced users" and it looks like despite the march of time that can still just about be done. On the other hand I routinely run into problems (the obvious sort you expect) when I allocate just 2GB for OpenBSD. Storage is cheap and getting cheaper. I have more terabytes than I ever dreamed could exist just ... sitting on the desk, unused. You can fit it in 2GB or even 512MB if you really must but why? Even 10GB quickly fills up --- this workstation I'm on has 17GB in /usr/local and that's with me keeping it trim because the machine "only" has 128GB. So without further ado, here's some HTML. Matthew Index: faq/faq4.html === RCS file: /src/openbsd/cvs/www/faq/faq4.html,v retrieving revision 1.554 diff -u -p -r1.554 faq4.html --- faq/faq4.html 10 Apr 2023 02:55:09 - 1.554 +++ faq/faq4.html 30 Apr 2023 14:34:18 - @@ -412,9 +412,11 @@ When you get to the list of file sets, s Disk Partitioning -OpenBSD can be installed in as little as 512MB, but using a device that small -is something for advanced users. -Until you have some experience, 8GB or more disk space is recommended. +With a little extra work OpenBSD can be installed in as little as +2GB but such a small device isn't recommended even for advanced +users due to the effort required at every new release. Until you +have some experience, 20GB or more disk space is recommended which +includes room for some large packages. Unlike some other operating systems, OpenBSD encourages users to split their
Re: Minimum install size
Stuart Henderson wrote in : |On 2023-04-29, Theo de Raadt wrote: |> The best way to not lie, is to not say anything at all. | |agreed, this value always gets out of date, and it's no longer the days |when one might be deciding whether to buy a 1/2/4GB CF. better to remove |than update now I think. I had 1.4 GB qcow2 VM image after installing 7.3 this week. Then some pkg_add and cvs stuff for the ports i maintain, and i ended up with almost 1.7 GB. Then i dropped the relink stuff, and used tar to copy over the entire system to another qcow2 image (realpath error can still be seen for installboot): -rw-r- 1 root vm 1681326080 Apr 29 21:41 .o-0703.qcow2 -rw-r- 1 root vm 882245632 Apr 29 21:50 o-0703.qcow2 The improvement is even greater than for 7.1, that image ~1.3 GB. A nice weekend i wish! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) |~~ |..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing.. | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure |~~ |Farewell, dear collar bear
Re: Minimum install size
On 2023-04-29, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > The best way to not lie, is to not say anything at all. agreed, this value always gets out of date, and it's no longer the days when one might be deciding whether to buy a 1/2/4GB CF. better to remove than update now I think.
Re: Minimum install size
From: WATANABE Takeo > so why not rewrite the FAQ as 1.5 GB as a minimum value Not appropriate since it only considers the case of amd64.
Re: Minimum install size
Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 09:55:13PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. > > > > > > My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is > > > appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and > > > "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. > > > > No, it is optimistic oversell by the faq authors > > > > It should be realistic & accurate, or it should say nothing at all. > > If I rembember correctly, the 512MB number was somewhere in the "possible > but not comfortable" range way back when the text was originally written. > But that was before several space consuming things such as the relinking > at boot steps happened. > > A more realistic estimate looking a the various systems I have within reach > suggests "you can squeeze in a full install inside 1GB, but if you plan on > installing any packages or storing data locally, there is no point in setting > yourself up for the pain of running out of storage". > > You could probably find the absolute minimim (an actually quite useless > number) by > checking the uncompressed sizes of the *.tgz install sets, but the last time I > remember doing a "df -h" on a fresh install before installing any packages or > introducing any data, the total ran to somewhere in excess of 650MB. > > The system with the least storage allocated that I interact with regularly > is a thing that runs spamd and some content filtering, with a total of 6GB > storage, and at most times uses about two thirds of that. > > If the bare minimum size for an OpenBSD install is vital information to you > for some reason, the way to find out is to do a fresh install using only the > Enter key, then recording he total used after first reboot. The exact number > is likely a little different across the 14 supported architectures. The best way to not lie, is to not say anything at all.
Re: Minimum install size
on Sat, 29 Apr 2023 13:40:51 +0200 "Peter N. M. Hansteen" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 09:55:13PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. >> > >> > My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is >> > appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and >> > "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. >> >> No, it is optimistic oversell by the faq authors >> >> It should be realistic & accurate, or it should say nothing at all. > > If I rembember correctly, the 512MB number was somewhere in the "possible > but not comfortable" range way back when the text was originally written. > But that was before several space consuming things such as the relinking > at boot steps happened. > > A more realistic estimate looking a the various systems I have within reach > suggests "you can squeeze in a full install inside 1GB, but if you plan on > installing any packages or storing data locally, there is no point in setting > yourself up for the pain of running out of storage". If that is the case, then it is wrong to write "installable on 512MB of storage" in the FAQ webpage. At the very least, you should write a value that works without the installation of additional ports, etc., and if you can make it user-friendly, you should change it to the minimum value that can be used normally, excluding the user area. > You could probably find the absolute minimim (an actually quite useless > number) by > checking the uncompressed sizes of the *.tgz install sets, but the last time I > remember doing a "df -h" on a fresh install before installing any packages or > introducing any data, the total ran to somewhere in excess of 650MB. In my amd64 environment, with no additional software installed, the results of "df -h" were as follows. hoge# df -h Filesystem SizeUsedAvail Capacity Mounted /dev/sd0a 1.9G91.5M 1.8G 5% / /dev/sd0g 4.8G 18.0K 4.6G 1% /home /dev/sd0d 1.9G 6.0K 1.8G 1% /tmp /dev/sd0f 9.7G 1.3G 7.9G14% /usr /dev/sd0e 3.9G 8.0M 3.7G 1% /var Taking this as an example, this means that about 1.4 GB is being used. Of course, the data capacity required for any partition increases as it is used, so why not rewrite the FAQ as 1.5 GB as a minimum value (but not recommended for use as a comfortable environment)? --- WATANABE, Takeo t...@kasaneiro.jp
Re: Minimum install size
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 09:55:13PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. > > > > My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is > > appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and > > "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. > > No, it is optimistic oversell by the faq authors > > It should be realistic & accurate, or it should say nothing at all. If I rembember correctly, the 512MB number was somewhere in the "possible but not comfortable" range way back when the text was originally written. But that was before several space consuming things such as the relinking at boot steps happened. A more realistic estimate looking a the various systems I have within reach suggests "you can squeeze in a full install inside 1GB, but if you plan on installing any packages or storing data locally, there is no point in setting yourself up for the pain of running out of storage". You could probably find the absolute minimim (an actually quite useless number) by checking the uncompressed sizes of the *.tgz install sets, but the last time I remember doing a "df -h" on a fresh install before installing any packages or introducing any data, the total ran to somewhere in excess of 650MB. The system with the least storage allocated that I interact with regularly is a thing that runs spamd and some content filtering, with a total of 6GB storage, and at most times uses about two thirds of that. If the bare minimum size for an OpenBSD install is vital information to you for some reason, the way to find out is to do a fresh install using only the Enter key, then recording he total used after first reboot. The exact number is likely a little different across the 14 supported architectures. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team https://bsdly.blogspot.com/ https://www.bsdly.net/ https://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: Minimum install size
From: Aaron Mason Subject: Re: Minimum install size Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 11:49:26 +1000 > If you wanted to go super hard core, you could build crunchgen in src > and build a busybox-style setup FYI: This is what FuguIta does. Yoshihiro Kawamata https://fuguita.org
Re: Minimum install size
Yoshihiro Kawamata wrote: > From: Janne Johansson > Subject: Re: Minimum install size > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:09:49 +0200 > > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. > > My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is > appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and > "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. No, it is optimistic oversell by the faq authors It should be realistic & accurate, or it should say nothing at all.
Re: Minimum install size
From: Janne Johansson Subject: Re: Minimum install size Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:09:49 +0200 > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. Yoshihiro Kawamata https://fuguita.org
Re: Minimum install size
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 5:11 PM Janne Johansson wrote: > > Den fre 28 apr. 2023 kl 06:12 skrev Yoshihiro Kawamata : > > > > In the OpenBSD FAQ, in the Installation Guide section, it says > > "OpenBSD can be installed in as little as 512MB, but using a device > > that small is something for advanced users". > > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Partitioning > > > > In fact, the installation of only the kernel and base73.tgz required > > 629MB for i386 and 1GB for amd64. > > > > For example, if I delete the files under /usr/share/relink, I can > > get within 512MB, but this is not a desirable installation method, is > > it? > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. > > -- > May the most significant bit of your life be positive. > If you wanted to go super hard core, you could build crunchgen in src and build a busybox-style setup - though such things would be super unsupported and you'd get to keep all the pieces if it breaks. -- Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
Re: Minimum install size
Den fre 28 apr. 2023 kl 06:12 skrev Yoshihiro Kawamata : > > In the OpenBSD FAQ, in the Installation Guide section, it says > "OpenBSD can be installed in as little as 512MB, but using a device > that small is something for advanced users". > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Partitioning > > In fact, the installation of only the kernel and base73.tgz required > 629MB for i386 and 1GB for amd64. > > For example, if I delete the files under /usr/share/relink, I can > get within 512MB, but this is not a desirable installation method, is > it? Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
Minimum install size
In the OpenBSD FAQ, in the Installation Guide section, it says "OpenBSD can be installed in as little as 512MB, but using a device that small is something for advanced users". https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Partitioning In fact, the installation of only the kernel and base73.tgz required 629MB for i386 and 1GB for amd64. For example, if I delete the files under /usr/share/relink, I can get within 512MB, but this is not a desirable installation method, is it? Yoshihiro Kawamata https://fuguita.org
