[suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Please reproduce your error on a second machine before posting, and check the error by running without saved changes or extra modules (See FAQ No. 13, "How to report a bug"). For unstable Porteus versions (alpha, beta, rc) please use the relevant thread in our "Development" section.
Post Reply
att
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 131
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 17:09

[suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#1 by att » 17 May 2011, 13:26

Hello,

I have looked into some scripts that are being used to create modules: "lzm2xzm", "dir2xzm", "txz2xzm" etc.
They all use "liblinuxlive" and a call to "create_module" to actually create the module.
This does not always work for me and certainly often breaks with some squashfs-error message.

I solved this by replacing "create_module" from all the scripts, and calling "mksquashfs" instead.

For example, "txz2xzm" contains:

create_module $TMPDIR "$2"

I replace it by:

mksquashfs $TMPDIR "$2"

Same for "dir2xzm", etc.

Works wonders for me, maybe should be implemented this way in the final Porteus 1.0 .

Regards
ATT

User avatar
Hamza
Warlord
Warlord
Posts: 1847
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 07:41
Distribution: Porteus
Location: France

Re: [suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#2 by Hamza » 17 May 2011, 16:48

For developper , that's a good idea.

But , for a normal user , We must stay with create_module function. The functions are optimized for older machine. If an user with a older machine use the argument -b 1M , Porteus will be very slow at boot for older machine.

Good Idea.
NjVFQzY2Rg==

User avatar
fanthom
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4613
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 02:42
Distribution: Porteus Kiosk
Location: Poland, currently - Cork, IE
Contact:

Re: [suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#3 by fanthom » 17 May 2011, 19:43

@att
when you look at liblinuxlive you will see that create_module function does exactly same thing:
"mksquashfs "$1" "$2" -b 256K -Xbcj x86 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9"

i have no idea why it makes troubles for you - never does for me.
it's easier to change settings in one file (liblinuxlive) then in all separately.
Please add [Solved] to your thread title if the solution was found.

User avatar
82issa
DOC Team
DOC Team
Posts: 127
Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 17:24
Location: USA, NC

Re: [suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#4 by 82issa » 17 May 2011, 19:47

I was a little confused about the create_module at first. Now I understand its use. I think it is quite funny that on the main page we have.
It's small (under 300Mb) and insanely fast which allows you to start up and get online while most other operating systems are left spitting dust. Porteus comes in both 32 & 64 bit and aims to keep on the bleeding edge. It also supports several different languages and the user forum has language sections. Join the community now!
aims to keep on the bleeding edge
Hamza wrote:We must stay with create_module function. The functions are optimized for older machine.
I do understand why we keep support for the older machine crowd. It would make it just a little easier to comprehend the scripts, if we take att's suggestion on this. For normal users with little experience, they are not going to be running a muck modifying the blocksize in the dir2xzm, etc... scripts.
I side with Hamza on this is. The way it is implemented does well for keeping compression uniform. Uniformity keeps it simple, for troubleshooting.
Sorry guys... I got to go. My girlfriend just casted "get your dirty ass into the shower" on me.
Oh and here is some naked grandpa pictures too.

User avatar
Ahau
King of Docs
King of Docs
Posts: 1331
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 15:18
Distribution: LXDE & Xfce 32/64-bit
Location: USA

Re: [suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#5 by Ahau » 17 May 2011, 19:56

82issa, what we've found is that using a larger block size in the compression makes the filesize of the modules smaller, but it slows down the compression and decompression speed. I may be wrong here, but I think that is the case whether you're on older hardware or newer hardware. Smaller block size = faster system with a slightly larger ISO. Larger block size = slower system with a slightly smaller ISO.

I've also not had issues with the *xzm* utilities, except when I was trying to use it with the wrong version of mksquashfs (my fault, not a problem in default porteus, except for 32bit V1.0 BETA, if you remove the xorg module from /porteus/base).
Please take a look at our online documentation, here. Suggestions are welcome!

User avatar
82issa
DOC Team
DOC Team
Posts: 127
Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 17:24
Location: USA, NC

Re: [suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#6 by 82issa » 17 May 2011, 19:58

Not a terrible suggestion tho @att.

@Ahau I was just stating that I don't think anyone is intentionally going to change the blocksize. I do understand the pro/cons of adjusting the blocksize.
Sorry guys... I got to go. My girlfriend just casted "get your dirty ass into the shower" on me.
Oh and here is some naked grandpa pictures too.

User avatar
Ahau
King of Docs
King of Docs
Posts: 1331
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 15:18
Distribution: LXDE & Xfce 32/64-bit
Location: USA

Re: [suggestion] "mksquashfs" instead of "create_module"

Post#7 by Ahau » 17 May 2011, 20:13

@82issa sorry, I misread your post! Bad Ahau! :crazy:
Please take a look at our online documentation, here. Suggestions are welcome!

Post Reply