Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Aug 2006 08:23 UTC, submitted by jamesd
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris Engineers at Sun are working on a 'small' version of Solaris 10. "I've got a modified Solaris miniroot with ZFS functionality which takes up about 60 MB (the compressed image, which GRUB uses, is less than 30MB). Solaris boots entirely into RAM. From poweron to full functionality, it takes about 45 seconds to boot on a very modest 1GHz Cyrix Mini ITX motherboard."
Order by: Score:
sounds like a great idea
by evert on Sun 6th Aug 2006 09:32 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be just great to have such short bootup times, no swapping of system files to harddisks (so you end up with a very responsive system), and still ZFS for the most reliable file storage available. Would be cool for webservers, mailservers and fileservers.

The author should take himself more serious. He ends with something like he has to return to his real work, but frankly, I think this Diet-Solaris should be a priority for him. The result can prove to be very applicable to a lot of situations.

Reply Score: 5

solaris evolution
by csousa on Sun 6th Aug 2006 13:41 UTC
csousa
Member since:
2006-02-04

I just migrate to solaris because there is more consistant and mature software than linux (sun java enterprise system, sun studio creeator...), and the documentation from sun is just the best...and the software are free.This ideia fills my thoughts that solaris gets most of the inovation in unix world.

Edited 2006-08-06 13:42

Reply Score: 4

Awsome
by Sphinx on Sun 6th Aug 2006 14:57 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Will it fit on a cdrom so I don't have to buy my ancient sparc a scsi dvd?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awsome
by ValiantSoul on Sun 6th Aug 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "Awsome"
ValiantSoul Member since:
2005-07-20

From the top description:
"about 60 MB (the compressed image, which GRUB uses, is less than 30MB)"

From the article:
"Countless Linux devices boot from flash in a matter of seconds and just work. Why can't Solaris do the same thing? "

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awsome
by kernelpanicked on Sun 6th Aug 2006 18:19 UTC in reply to "Awsome"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not even asking for a 60MB image, just something along the lines of a one cd install.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awsome
by Robert Escue on Sun 6th Aug 2006 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Awsome"
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Have you ever tried rolling your own Installation CD based on the Reduced Networking (SUNWrnet) install cluster? I recently built a Flash Archive of a Solaris 10 1/06 install with a decent range of SPARC hardware support, as well as support for Zones. It came in under 600 MB, this includes gcc and all of the development tools and libraries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Awsome
by Sphinx on Tue 8th Aug 2006 01:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awsome"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

That's a terrific idea. thanks.

Reply Score: 1

v re: solaris evolution
by deb2006 on Sun 6th Aug 2006 15:26 UTC
RE: re: solaris evolution
by Robert Escue on Sun 6th Aug 2006 16:06 UTC in reply to "re: solaris evolution"
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

There is a reason for that, it's called stability! Look at AIX and HP-UX, they are pretty much the same as Solaris when it comes to feature integration and age of some of their binaries. You don't get that stability by using alpha and beta code in your OS, nor do you put in a bunch of "features" just to impress a handful of people.

If you want bleeding edge features you go to OpenSolaris or Linux. I am sure over a period of time the code that is being tested and written for OpenSolaris will be integrated into Solaris, but I prefer the slow and methodical approach. That means less problems for me as I deploy on production systems.

Reply Score: 4

RE: re: solaris evolution
by kernelpanicked on Sun 6th Aug 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "re: solaris evolution"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

Funny I've always found the Solaris userland tools much simpler and less error prone. Let's compare burning CDs just for kicks on Solaris vs. Linux.

Solaris:

# cdrw file.iso

Linux:

# cdrecord -v speed=12 dev=/dev/hdc -pad -data -please-dont-coaster file.iso

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: re: solaris evolution
by spstarr on Mon 7th Aug 2006 03:30 UTC in reply to "RE: re: solaris evolution"
spstarr Member since:
2006-02-21

This is fud and you know it.

cdrecord does not need all of those options specified!

At most:

# cdrecord dev=/dev/hdc file.iso

How does Solaris distinguish which CD-RW drive to use if you have more than one? You'd have to tell it a device somehow.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: re: solaris evolution
by darrenmoffat on Mon 7th Aug 2006 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: solaris evolution"
darrenmoffat Member since:
2005-11-17

cdrw -l will show you all the writable CD/DVD devices.

If you need to specify a specific one then use the -d flag which takes as a argument the alias name from -l output.

Latest Solaris Express (Sun's OpenSolaris distribution) also come with cdrecord.

In my opinion the fact that you have to specify a device at all, particularly for the case were there is only one device, is poor user interface design.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: re: solaris evolution
by pxa270 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: re: solaris evolution"
pxa270 Member since:
2006-01-08

If you only have one burner, can't you just stick a

alias cdrw='cdrecord -v dev=/dev/hdc -driveropts=burnfree'

in your .profile?

Edited 2006-08-07 09:58

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: re: solaris evolution
by darrenmoffat on Tue 8th Aug 2006 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: re: solaris evolution"
darrenmoffat Member since:
2005-11-17

That assumes that every machine I use has /dev/hdc as the burner. The whole point of my post (and the original one I believe) is that with cdrw(1) you as the end user don't need to find this out it does it. With cdrecord you need to specify it and it could be different for every machine.

Also on Solaris there isn't a /dev/hdc we name devices differently :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re: solaris evolution
by kernelpanicked on Mon 7th Aug 2006 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: solaris evolution"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

Please stop using that word (fud). I don't think it means what you think it means.

Reply Score: 1

Hmmmm
by flywheel on Sun 6th Aug 2006 16:55 UTC
flywheel
Member since:
2005-12-28

That sounds very-very interesting - there's a lot of situations where a slim Solaris would come in handy.

Just one thing, the Cyrix processors reign ended with the MII-400GP and didn't OC very well - the mentioned 1Ghz processor more sounds like a Via C5/C7, which still is based on the Centaur Winchip design (And actually still developed by Centaur).

Reply Score: 1

linkt to thread
by cedric.walter on Sun 6th Aug 2006 21:17 UTC
cedric.walter
Member since:
2005-10-09
*SIgh*
by DevL on Sun 6th Aug 2006 21:45 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

60MB? 1GHz? 45 seconds?

I miss my Amiga.

Reply Score: 2

RE: *SIgh*
by renox on Mon 7th Aug 2006 08:52 UTC in reply to "*SIgh*"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Note that your Amiga OS didn't have memory protection, it wasn't portable, had not journalised FS etc..

Still I agree that this is far too much..

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Awsome
by kernelpanicked on Sun 6th Aug 2006 22:29 UTC
kernelpanicked
Member since:
2006-02-01

No I haven't, but it sounds like a cool idea to try out next time I feel the urge to geek-out.

Reply Score: 1