If you could not use a package manager e.g. yum/apt what which OS would you choose?
InceptionHosting
Hosting ProviderOG
in General
As per the title, what would be your OS of choice and why if package managers were not available due to lack of ram?
Personally I think I might be tempted to actually go for FreeBSD.
Asking because I am considering putting up some mini containers free for community members that pass certain landmarks but in order to automate the crap out of it so it is very light touch management I am only going to offer a single OS.
Thanked by (1)jureve
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
Comments
Slackware, as that's what I always used to use, or OpenBSD I think
hmm never considered slack, might see if its even remotely possible to build a vz7 template for slack yet (ever)
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
It would seem not
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
Why is it not possible? Does it depend on what the host kernel supports? Never really done anything with vz7 like that
Well I mean it might be possible, but there is no EZ template package for it yet so the entire structure needs to be setup.
VZ7 is very different, you cant just hand it a tar ball and say "off you go!"
Currently it nativity handles:
That sets up up with the structure to then build templates and gives you a structure, package manager links, networking setup scripts etc.
example (rough)
Then you need to setup the default package sets:
Then finally after that (and about 10 other steps/checks) you can actually build a deployable EZ template for OpenVZ 7
Then you need to link the template to the network setup scripts (which dont exist for slack) so that networking actually works on container deployment.
So It may be possible but I would probably need to copy another OS template structure, update all the repo links, scripts etc and then MAYBE it would work.
Essentially you setup the environment for it then it self auto builds and installs the OS and generates an EZ template from the structure you hand it, you can then use that template for every container going forward or you can remove the lock file and have it do a full fresh pull of all packages from the OS repo upon every container deployment.
Very very different to OpenVZ 6.
I did create an initial set of EZ templates (very minimal) for everyone to use a while back: http://185.164.137.206/vz7/
I will add centos 8 to that when I get a minute.
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
From that list of available templates I guess Debian would have the smallest footprint.
I've never used it, but I heard Arch has a small footprint as well, but it's not on the list.
Just curious: is the container OpenVZ 7? If so, then FreeBSD wouldn't run anyway, would it?
FreeBSD has a package manager. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, it offers a choice of two package managers.
How little RAM? I think that apt/Debian can manage with as little as 128 MB on KVM.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
i didn't read what is before this post because i am totally exhausted.
if the main reason not to use a package manager is the resource constraints then i would go alpine.
in fact if you look at the [ Mini root filesystem ] its so f.small 6MB one can actually just compile some app and let it run ....
alpine
That right, I was hoping while typing that that beehive or whatever it was called project actually went somewhere for bsd containers, sadly it sis not.
1/3 core, 32MB Ram, 3GB Disk, 33GB BW.
Fun little free box to get the creative juices flowing.
I was working on the assumption that anything you need will have to be compiled.
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
Okay, yes, that's small!
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
I don't think you can get a single thing to run in that with OVZ7 other than Alpine, and possibly Void, since it'll need to be able to utilize the newer kernel. If it was a KVM, I'd say OpenBSD - I've got a production service running in 64M/3G.
My pronouns are like/subscribe.
I guess I could look at using KVM.
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
Here's my stripped down kernel config to save you some time: http://bsd01.ny.bangpath.tech/TINY.txt
My pronouns are like/subscribe.
My two cents: I would say at least 64 MB on OpenVZ 7 and at least 128 MB on KVM, otherwise it would be too much of a pain for the user ...
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Wuss.
My pronouns are like/subscribe.
Ain't nobody gonna compile their own kernel for a tiny VPS in 2020 -- except for you!
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
?? My understanding is bhyve is more like KVM.
Iocage is the new hot tool for Jails, and that might be closer to what you're thinking of.
I see, it has been years since I read about it to be honest.
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
If I receive such a box, I'll run Go programs only.
Go only depends on kernel, and doesn't even need libc.
Go can run on any Linux distribution, as well as FreeBSD.
To access the machine and install Go, I'll request the following to be preinstalled:
Everything else, I'm going to delete as they waste RAM.
Accepting submissions for IPv6 less than /64 Hall of Incompetence.
arch linux, if you are okay with a rolling release model as base OS. If arch, then pacman is the obvious choice.
Other options:
I'm surprised no one mentioned gentoo
Kind of hard to compile a pgcc kernel with 32MB of RAM.
My pronouns are like/subscribe.
Second @WSS, would run Alpine. Have a few single purpose tiny VMs (usually LXC) and am running Alpine w/o issues - but when I say tiny I'm talking 128/256MB not 32, lol.
🦍🍌
what are 3GB of disk for? =]
That page is really a blast from the past
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
This entire forum uses less than that
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
No, it was a bad joke that it's tough to compile stuff on 32MB, but you can swap it out to 3GB disk, since you compile less often than use yum/apt.
I know it's ridiculous, I was trying to be funny.
I remember compiling 2.0.x kernels on a i486 ThinkPad with 16 MB of RAM. It wasn't super fast, but not painfully slow, either.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Bah. 1.9 kernel compiles on 386 hardware ran overnight!
Edit: I think it was after around the 1.9 series that I moved over to Debian Bo, which was the first time I had a 2.0 series kernel. Dang that makes me feel old.
Now that I think about it, I would probably treat the container like Linux from Scratch, and just drop binaries and libraries as needed. Everything would get compiled on a build server, and then get copied over.
The little container would probably be more useful with a build system attached to it.