== current livecd is based on minifo ==

=== Advantages ===
 * each module mounts as an overlay of the previous
 * no requirement for ramdisks and symlinks etc.

=== Issues ===
 * mini-fo is _BUGGY_.
 * complex
 * maintenance
 * divergence (hardware detection)
 * different kernel
 * different X
 * limited architecture support
 * rsyncablity

== New design (for hoary): ==

=== writable ( mini-fo ) ===
 * -> device mapper snapshots
  * copy on write at block level

=== compression ( cloop ) ===
 * -> want to use cloop
  * currently doesn't play well with device mapper (wrong blocks, corruption, badness)

=== hardware detection ( knoppix ) ===
 * -> switch to hotplug

=== build system ( morphix ) ===
 * -> debian-installer & custom bits
  * need to better handle netcfg w/o dhcp issues.
 * other architecture support comes for (hopefully) free.
  * addressed by debian-installer

=== kernel ( 2.6.7+patches vs 2.6.8.1 ) ===
 * -> unifying: add cloop to stock kernel.

=== X ( mkxf86conf ) ===
 * Xorg config ubuntu packages (using debconf)

== New Fun Stuff ==
 * persistant data (use a persistant device for COW)
 * arbitrary storage ("it's a block device")
 * debian-installer customization
 * combined liveCD and install media


== Misc notes ==
SquashFS is a read-only filesystem, which violates the design criteria.


From Juanje Tue Apr 5 14:06:42 +0100 2005
From: Juanje
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:06:42 +0100
Subject: Squashfs, ro, and so on
Message-ID: <20050405140642+0100@https://www.ubuntulinux.org>

'''Current System''':

ext3 image (rw) + cloop (ro) = cloop image (ro)

cloop image (ro) + blocks dev (rw) + device mapper snapshots = semi-rw filesystem


'''Proposal''':

Squashfs (ro) + dir (rw) + unionfs = semi-rw filesystem

'''Reasons''':

''Cloop'' = Buggy, slow, inefficient

''Squashfs'' = Stable, fast, very efficient, it suports more architectures

''Unionfs extras'' = you can mount directories, it's no necessary to be a bloks dev. That open a lot of posibilities more than with just blocks devices'

CategoryArchive