hi all,

On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 16:24 -0800, Radim Kolar wrote:
> >From my tests, Solaris needs to have at least [b]512 MB[/b] RAM for
> installation success even if using old text mode install. This is too
> much RAM, because lot of notebooks around me have just 256MB and ppl
> would like to try Solaris.
> 
> After installing 256MB is enough for running Solaris, so it would be
> nice to have at least text installer (Ubuntu installs in X11 on 256MB
> box) to work on 256MB machines.


I've been running an ancient Dell machine with 256mb of ram at home,
installed with nv_70b which so far has been working fine. (I've had 36,
57 and 63 on it in the past, iirc). This system has a 160gb zpool on it,
and regularly backs up a few gb of data, so zfs & 256mb isn't /too/
bad[1].



Over the weekend, I thought I'd try installing Indiana. The system boots
from the livecd into the GNOME desktop eventually but in order to save a
bit more ram, I booted into text mode, added a swap slice, and then
remote-displayed the installer and started the install.

The install got about 21% in, before the install hung. Trying again with
kmdb loaded, I saw that the system was under pretty severe memory
pressure while doing a cpio of the solaris.zlib file contents, swapping
like mad (and when program-text is on cdrom, this is bad ;-)

Digging around a bit, I zpool imported the half-completed zpl_slim pool
and ftp'd the solaris.zlib file from a remote system directly onto the
pool and mounted the .zlib file from there, so I wouldn't be impacted as
much by the speed of the cdrom.

I then tried again to cpio it's contents, thinking I might be able to
manually complete the install, but again, we only got part of the way in
before the system started swapping heavily.


I initially thought that perhaps the livecd was using up a lot of ram,
but reading
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/caiman/slim_prototype/build_live_dvd
suggests that the livecd ramdisk is already as small as it can be - is
that the case?

Given though that the system was pretty responsive under nv_70, I'm
trying to work out what's going on - I'm thinking next, I might try
extracting to UFS to see if ZFS is the problem, but if anyone has better
ideas ?

[ this of course, is very low priority, I totally accept that the
install engineering team have much better things to be doing than deal
with obsolete hardware like mine! ]

        cheers,
                        tim


[1] apparently small memory helps here :-)
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=41474#162180
-- 
Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops
http://blogs.sun.com/timf


Reply via email to