Beryllium software replacements/additions

johnraff · 2022-02-20 07:39:26

I've never used RAID so I did some web research, including these on the Debian installer:
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/ … 6s03#mdcfg
https://sleeplessbeastie.eu/2013/10/04/ … n-process/

rbh wrote:

You can create raid in Debian installer advanced, and mdadm has to be installed to handle the raid.

Just to be clear - you say "mdadm has to be installed". My impression is that if a RAID setup is chosen during installation then debian-installer will install mdadm by itself - there's no need for the user to do it manually. Is that correct? (With LVM or LUKS setups the necessary packages are installed automatically by d-i.)

Or as you propose, you can install to an allready created raid and mdadm will be installed.

I don't remember making any such proposition.

Are you saying that the live system will not boot on a raid system if mdadm is not already installed?
No, but you can not mount the raidpartitions.
...why is it not simple to install mdadm with apt?
Install small nessesary tools to manage the system from live iso....?

Right: Menu > System > Install Favourite Packages > Utilities > Install mdadm Disks Manager

mdadm does no harm if installed just, like btrfs-progs doesn't harm to be installed if chosen file-system is ext4

The main reason I feel reluctant about mdadm is that it's described as a daemon and installs quite a number of systemd services, along with triggering a rebuild of initramfs when installed, so I wonder if it might affect boot time? Simply installing some libraries to a corner of the hard disk is harmless, agreed, but extra boot-time routines might be considered as bloat by people who aren't using those services.

Now, it's true that we already ship lvm2 and cryptsetup by default. Maybe they're not really needed either?

rbh · 2022-02-20 08:04:04

johnraff wrote:

rbh wrote:
You can create raid in Debian installer advanced, and mdadm has to be installed to handle the raid.
Just to be clear - you say "mdadm has to be installed". My impression is that if a RAID setup is chosen during installation then debian-installer will install mdadm by itself - there's no need for the user to do it manually. Is that correct?

Yes.

Or as you propose, you can install to an allready created raid and mdadm will be installed.

I don't remember making any such proposition.

That was in your text a scenario...

The main reason I feel reluctant about mdadm is that it's described as a daemon and installs quite a number of systemd services, along with triggering a rebuild of initramfs when installed, so I wonder if it might affect boot time?

I havent clockecd the differnces wit bor without mdadm. Or searched it on the net. My subjective feeling is no big difference. Rebuilding initramfs is not dome more times than on non-raided systems.

Simply installing some libraries to a corner of the hard disk is harmless, agreed, but extra boot-time routines might be considered as bloat by people who aren't using those services.

I have thought we should post a "Post installation tweaks" and list services programs like ModemManager, btrfs-progs and so on, that users who ndo not use them can disable or uninstal...

Now, it's true that we already ship lvm2 and cryptsetup by default. Maybe they're not really needed either?

No, only if you choose them or later attach such media...

rbh · 2022-02-20 08:18:57

Correction:

If you have mdadm installed but no raided disks, the additional boot delay is like the delay when btrfs-progs is installed but no btrfs-file system is present, maybee some tenth of second.

The delay when raid is present, will wary dependent of setup.
I prefer raid1 for /boot and raid5 for /. Theoretically that should boot faster than booting from single disk...

johnraff · 2022-02-21 05:06:22

My point about updating the initramfs was that some packages do this when they are installed (not on every boot of course). Rebuilding the initramfs says to me that a change is being made to the boot process. Packages that do this on installation are making a bigger change to the system than those which simply install some libraries.

---

But anyway, I did a quick test on a VM - removed mdadm, shut down, and checked the RAM usage after a fresh boot.
There was a slight fall, slightly lower again after a second shutdown/boot.
Then I removed btrfs-progs lvm2 and cryptsetup, and did the same again. After 3 shutdowns, the RAM seemed to stabilize at a further slightly lower figure. Then I reinstalled all four packages and checked the RAM again to see a slight increase.

But all these changes were very small. Like, from 415MB cold boot with all four packages installed to 402MB with all four removed. And differences of several MB between different boots, so the saving in RAM from removing those utilities looks rather unimportant.

From a user's subjective point of view I could not see any obvious difference in boot time with or without those four packages.

So if we are going to continue to ship lvm2 cryptsetup and btrfs-progs, there seems little logical reason not to also ship mdadm (even though installing any of them after booting the live session is quite easy).

rbh wrote:

I have thought we should post a "Post installation tweaks" and list services programs like ModemManager, btrfs-progs and so on, that users who do not use them can disable or uninstall...

A good idea. Though, please consider: by installing possibly unnecessary packages we are passing a small inconvenience from those users who would like them preinstalled to those users who don't want them.

Which is the larger user group? Which is the bigger inconvenience? Perhaps these are things to consider a little down the road.

Anyway, for now let's add mdadm and move on to releasing the iso...

johnraff · 2023-08-19 09:12:19

hhh wrote:

If you want to add xfce4-appfinder, I recommend that our menu command uses the '--disable-server' switch so the finder closes without leaving a daemon behind.

Drat! Completely forgot about this.

More than a year late, now adding '--disable-server'.

Sector11 · 2023-08-21 02:54:02

Doesn't anyone here use BL on Debian?

johnraff · 2023-08-21 03:09:14

^I do! I like Debian very much. (BL too)

Last edited by johnraff (2023-08-21 06:55:04)

rbh · 2023-08-21 06:54:15

Sector11 wrote:

Doesn't anyone here use BL on Debian?

There is thousands of reasons to use Debian. Not so many reasons to use something else. Easy choice.

Sector11 · 2023-08-21 13:49:27

johnraff wrote:

^I do! I like Debian very much. (BL too)

rbh wrote:

There is thousands of reasons to use Debian. Not so many reasons to use something else. Easy choice.

Sector11 likes both of these answers.

hhh · 2023-08-22 02:49:54

Sector11 wrote:

Doesn't anyone here use BL on Debian?

Yeah, boiiiiii!!!

Sector11 · 2023-08-22 03:39:47

hhh wrote:

Sector11 wrote:
Doesn't anyone here use BL on Debian?
Yeah, boiiiiii!!!
https://imgur.com/NuyXjE9t.png

johnraff · 2023-08-22 06:16:44

hhh wrote:

Sector11 wrote:
Doesn't anyone here use BL on Debian?
Yeah, boiiiiii!!!
https://imgur.com/NuyXjE9t.png

Task Manager, eh? You really like Gnome I guess!

hhh · 2023-08-23 05:01:30

Eh herm, lxtask, thank you very much! Nothing but the best on my crap system. Also, looks brilliant, eh?

I confess I use gnome-screensaver instead of light-locker, it plays better with my HDMI linked dual monitor, and I like how the sound doesn't cut out for a few seconds when I lock.

-edit- So when I stream from my laptop to my TV and close the laptop lid, nothing changes with the monitor video or sound, but the laptop screen still locks and the backloght turns off. Also on login after logout instead of boot the dual display resolution cursor size was usually huge on the TV with light-locker, gnome-screensaver seems to fix that issue. All good stuff.

Last edited by hhh (2023-08-23 05:10:44)

hhh · 2023-08-23 05:18:53

BTW, I'm still using lightdm, I've just replaced light-locker. The command to launch (replace-bind it to Mod4 + l) is "gnome-screensaver-command --lock"

Set the wallpaper for it via dconf... /org/gnome/desktop/background/picture-uri

The path can be to your home directory, it doesn't have to be a root path.

-edit- I think the result is way slicker than light-locker, though I'm not advocating for a replacement at this late date.

Last edited by hhh (2023-08-23 05:23:21)

johnraff · 2023-08-23 05:28:08

hhh wrote:

I think the result (gnome-screensaver) is way slicker than light-locker, though I'm not advocating for a replacement at this late date.

Let's not forget it for Carbon.

The xscreensaver dev was extremely critical of g-s security in the past - we'll need to check if that still applies or not...

hhh · 2023-08-23 05:32:09

Huh, hadn't heard that before. Good catch to raise the question.

johnraff · 2023-08-23 07:27:22

In the xscreensaver docs somewhere.
He was also kindof stingy with the editing rights on the GUI or something...

#41 2022-02-20 07:39:26

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#42 2022-02-20 08:04:04

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#43 2022-02-20 08:18:57

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#44 2022-02-21 05:06:22

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#45 2023-08-19 09:12:19

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#46 2023-08-21 02:54:02

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#47 2023-08-21 03:09:14

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#48 2023-08-21 06:54:15

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#49 2023-08-21 13:49:27

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#50 2023-08-22 02:49:54

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#51 2023-08-22 03:39:47

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#52 2023-08-22 06:16:44

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#53 2023-08-23 05:01:30

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#54 2023-08-23 05:18:53

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#55 2023-08-23 05:28:08

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#56 2023-08-23 05:32:09

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

#57 2023-08-23 07:27:22

Re: Beryllium software replacements/additions

Board footer