Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

I'm running out of space for installed programs. Now if I want to add a few more applications, I would have to use additional memory. Is it possible to instruct the application manager to install the programs under the 2GB memory instead of the 256MB flash?

Thanks.

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

Please remember to search before starting new threads.

http://wiki.maemo.org/Booting_from_a_flash_card

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

What they don't mention very clearly in these threads is this:

You cannot use flash for OS storage unless you boot from flash!

And that stinks.

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

I think it's possible to free up some internal memory just moving existing directories to the 2gb memory (/media/mmc2) and linking them with ln -s.
I didn't try yet, though.

Umberto

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

Actually, you can, but why would you want to? It's slower, harder to set up, harder to keep going once it's set up, much more prone to breakage, less stable, and gives you significantly shorter battery life.

Why, exactly, would you want to use a method with all of those pitfalls over one that's easy to set up, very stable, and actually gives you performance benefits?

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

Why is it slower? We're talking about using symbolic links? And why the difference in battery life? And while I'm at it, the performance benefits are due to the faster sd clock?

It is harder to set up, harder to keep going, more prone to breakage. I could go either way on stability subject to the above points.

thanks,
Frank

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

If things are getting really tight, it's best to move your documents to flash. I'd have to check, but most of my folders within my "User" folder are sim-linked to flash.

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

I am afraid i don't understand your reply and it seems others also don't.

The question was whether it's possible to move parts to the sd card and someone said no, only the entire system can be moved to the card. You say it is possible, but it's e.g. slower than copying the entire system and draws more power and is less reliable.

Please, why is
- copying parts instead of everthing slower?
- why draws copying parts instead of everything more power?
- why is copying parts less reliable?

That doesn't make sense to me. Especially the reliability issue makes no sense to me. You suggest that the sd card is less reliable than the internal flash. Why should that be? It's just hardware controlled nand memory versus software controlled. And you claim the software controlled is more reliable?

Or am i misunderstanding your entire post?

MoG

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

No one has answered the first poster.
Basically we don't want to change where the OS is, we just want to install apps to the 2gb internal drive or the external card.
I'm sure there is a FAQ somewhere if someone could just point us.

Its 1 of 2 things:

1. Either changing the symbolic link of something like USR (but are programs spread over more then set of root folders) ?
2. Or its the setup of the application manager.

If anyone finds it please post

rgds

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

Ok: Yes, this is possible. You need to reformat your internal memory card to a filesystem linux can run programs of and that maemo supports. This would e.g. be the ext3 file system. You can then link to applications there or link to entire directories.

But you need to make sure that you don't move anything there that's needed before the memory card is mounted. I haven't tested this, but you might run into such trouble when moving the entire /usr there.

When don't you just try it. You can always reflash the unit if something fails.

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

It's simple, there are no real benefits to moving only part of the OS to an SD card rather than the whole thing.

It's possible, but it's an inferior solution. The problem is that the user wants more space to install applications. The good solution is to move the OS to a card where there is lots of space available. The bad solution is to start symlinking stuff to the card (I outlined the reasons above).

Because important parts of your OS are still residing on the slower built-in flash memory.

Why does having two hard drives running at the same time use more power than just one?

Why is RAID 0 less reliable? You've doubled your failure points and removed the option of a bootable backup.

No, I suggested that the solution of only moving portions of the OS to a flash card was less reliable than booting the whole OS from that flash card.

As I said above, you've doubled your failure points.

For the most part, yes.

Booting from a flash card gives you a number of benefits. It leaves a bootable backup on the internal flash that you can fall back to if something goes wrong, it speeds up filesystem-intensive operations (uncompressed filesystem, faster flash memory), and it offers you lots of space to install applications.

A question for you, Master of Gizmo, with all those benefits (and all the disadvantages of symlinking) why would you rather symlink stuff to your card than boot from it?

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

What's wrong with symlinking ?
Does it matter anything that the data actually resides on a (of course ext3 formatted) memory card or in the internal flash ?
I want to try it to symlink large libraries to a folder on the memory card, I didn't try it yet.

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

GA is right, symlinking is just a world of pain. Been there, done that. Too many things can go wrong, too many hidden gotcha's. Moving your boot to a card seems scary at first, but it is the correct long term solution. Not to mention you get a 'free' fallback boot in case something goes amiss on the 'main', card based boot.

Re: Using 2GB internal memory for apps?
 

No, ext3 is the wrong choice.

This is a flash memory device, so you should better use JFFS2.
it keeps up the live of your memory card.


About symlinking:

I'm now too at the point to get more space for the OS.
Symlinking looked like a good idea at the first place, but there is a problem.
From my experience connecting the N810 via USB to a PC can result in making the large internal flash memory (2GB) not usable on the N810 Device during the time, the device is connected to the PC.

So if you moved /usr to the flash drive and mounted it on /usr,
the device will brake because it can't use the flash memory as described above.

If you only copied /usr to the flash drive and mounted the flash drive on /usr, you mights still be able to use the device but without the apps installed on the large flash drive.
Additionally dpkg the packet manager will now run in problems if you now update or install new software because as i said, the large 2 GB flash drive is hidden, when connected to the PC, so the N810 device uses the small 256 MB one which is inconsistent to the apt database you used for the larger 2 GB flash drive.


So from this viewpoint installing a new independant system on the large internal flash drive is better than symlinking.