Shrinking consumed diskspace

[Anders Häggström]

2007/5/29, Soren Hansen <sh at linux2go.dk>:
> I'm looking now at a fresh feisty server installation. I've run one (1)
> command after rebooting: 'apt-get clean'. I now have a total space
> consumption of 362796 kB which is 354 MB. The kernel is
> 2.6.20-15-server.
>
Good for you, but it doesn't help me with the fact that something went
strange with my installation.

> > This is not what I experienced when installing it.  My installation
> > was ~650MB after the installation, with a generic-kernel and I didn't
> > get a choise to install the server-kernel during the installation.
>
> I don't know what you did, but my fresh feisty server installation is
> very different fro that. You should report a bug.
>
Maby I'll just had bad luck. I will try to redo the installation
before I report any bugs. And if I get the same result (a
generic-kernel and a lot of unnecesary packages, like the metapackage
ubuntu-standard that also were installed) I will report a bug for it.
If the standard installation of a server is 350MB, then I maby will be
able to shrink it further. =)

> > I also have some laptop-specific packages installed such as
> > wpasuplicant and wireless-tools that is dependencies to ubuntu-minimal
> > but does not belong in a server enviroment.
>
> One could argue that. One could also argue that it's more important from
> a things-should-just-work perspective that if someone is unlucky enough
> to only have wifi access from his/her server, we shouldn't rob him/her
> of his/her only way of connecting to the network.
>
Thats true but I doubt that is very common. And a lot of other things
that is done in Ubuntu is done for the common use, not for special
uses. One with special use is often aware that it is special use and
will be able to handle that situation by hin/her self.

> You need to realise that "server" does not necessarily mean huge,
> expensive things with only fancy RAID cards and so on. It just means an
> no-desktop installation. If people need to use some sort of bluetooth
> device, they shouldn't be forced to install a complete desktop. It's a
> perfectly valid use case.
>
No, ofcource not. In my defenition of a server is a minimal install
that is specialised to hadle specific tasks in service to other
computers. Therefor, on a server you only have what is needed to be
able to do the task. No more, no less, exept for some managemet tools.
The fiewer things there is the fiewer things can get boke or mess
things up and therefore increase the uptime/availibility of the
services/tasks.

> Also, since you're spending so much time getting rid of those last 12MB,
> I'm guessing YOUR server is not a big, several thousand euro machine
> either?
>
No, do I need to have expensive hardware or be backed up by a large
company to be taken seriously?
I'm only trying to shrink the installation as far as possible, and
deinstall all packages I don't need or will never use, and thereafter
install only those packages I need to make my server handle only the
tasks I tell it to.
Again, the smaller the better, because less things can mess things up
and it's easier t get an overview of the system.
I do this to learn about linux and Ubuntu, so I can apply my knowledge
to other servers later.

> To be perfectly honest, I'd be hesitant of accusing others of shouting
> random things if I were you. Case in point: apt-get not handling
> dependencies..
>
There is a big difference between false claims and a
missunderstanding. And this was just a missunderstanding. I will try
to explain what I meant with an example:
If I install package X with a dependency Y. Both X and Y gets
installed no matter if I use apt-get or atpitude, right?
The bit difference (and this is what I meant) is when I remove package
X with apt-get package Y will still be installed and unused. If I
remove package X with aptitude (if I installed it with aptitude)
package Y will also get removed, if it is not needed by some other
packages.
This behavior will keep the installation clean over a longer view,
when a lot of upgrades have been done and dependencies have changed
fore and back and so on.
Sorry about apt-get, my bad english again.

> Indeed, but how would you expect me to stop the discussion before you
> even started it?
You couldn't have stoped it before it began, but you could take me a
litle more seriously because I'm not just plain wrong.. (well, maby I
am in your eyes)


2007/5/29, Ante Karamatić <ivoks at grad.hr>:
> Well, I'm not the one to judge that, but you did said false claims.
>
No, it was not false claims, just something strange with my
installation and two missunderstandings.

> For apt-get, check out DESCRIPTION in apt-get(8). Also, notice that
> aptitude is using apt-get. -server kernel is default on ubuntu-server.
> And no, you don't install nvidia module. You need nvidia-glx package for
> that. Default server install doesn't have any package that works only in
> Xorg.
As I described above. apt-get does not keep track of
dependency-installed packages and manually installed packages. That
was what I meant at least. And that is no false claim, just a bad
description from me.
>
> IIRC, acpid is not in the default install of ubuntu-server.
What do you mean with "IIRC"?
No, I have installed a fiew packages that I will use that is not in
the standard installation, like acpid, cpufreqd, cryptsetup, mdadm,
lvm2 and lm-sensors


2007/5/29, Etienne Goyer <etienne.goyer at outlands.ca>:
> Did you guys tried the "Minimal Installation" target ?  I know it's
> available on the DVD, and I *believe* it also is on the the alternate
> CD.  The seed for minimal is, indeed, pretty small, somewhat smaller
> than the server one.  See :
>
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/seeds/ubuntu.feisty/minimal
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/seeds/ubuntu.feisty/server-ship
>
>
> I am unsure about which kernel the minimal target would install, though.
>
Thanks! I will check that out. I will have to redo my installation anyway.
There is a lot of trial'n'error involved in learning. =)

// Anders