Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 28 Jul 2014, 04:53
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Why do I need a Save file?
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 2 [23 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Author Message
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 5000
Location: Charleston S.C. USA

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jun 2014, 03:08    Post subject:  

Moat,

Basically all your statements are true.

Quirky 6 is the only Puppy that is even trying to work from a full install to a USB flash drive. And it needs the drive formatted f2fs.

_________________
I have found, in trying to help people, that the things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8032

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jun 2014, 04:35    Post subject:  

moat..

there is no compression/decompression of a save file.... everything is stored as is as its an image of a partition not and archive.

Size only affects creating the save file.... boot and shutdown times are affected by the amount of changed data per session as that is what's transferred

I am pretty sure flash technology has moved on in the past 10 years...after all SSD drives are based on similar devices. In the same way there is USB 2 and 3 rather than one which makes PUPMODE=13 pretty redundant.
For a while I ran windows XP from an SDcard on a netbook...fat32 and did not suffer any data loss / corruption.
What is the spec now for writes?..how would that equate in practical terms for life expectancy...perhaps we need some concrete figures.
Journalling is supposed to wear them faster...again how much that is based on 10 year old devices I don't know.

Not much mention of but save partition/folder would make more efficient space use... save sfs to me is what I use...perhaps that will be introduced at some point like folder has...that way you only have a save exactly the size of the data and no more...it also allows removal of the flash stick. Save folder is hardly experimental since its a method that has been around at least 8 years (my save folder is 5 years old on one machine) unlike f2fs...yet another filesystem..what happened to btrfs?

I chimed in Very Happy

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
greengeek

Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 2407
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jun 2014, 04:54    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
there is no compression/decompression of a save file.... everything is stored as is as its an image of a partition not and archive.
Well, it's definitely an archive. It's zipped up in a 1:1 ratio Smile

Quote:
save sfs to me is what I use...perhaps that will be introduced at some point
Surely an sfs would have a compression / decompression overhead? (mksquash/unsquash?). I know you have a small one but what about those who have big ones?? Wink

Quote:
Save folder is hardly experimental since its a method that has been around at least 8 years
Thats not fair - you are 5 years ahead of normal puppy users. It's new for the rest of us...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8032

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jun 2014, 05:03    Post subject:  

Quote:
Well, it's definitely an archive. It's zipped up in a 1:1 ratio

sorry but its a partition image...NO involvement with archive techniques whatsoever. Its loop mounted....note you are using ext2/3/4 as read/write.... they are NOT archive formats.
Quote:

Surely an sfs would have a compression / decompression overhead? (mksquash/unsquash?). I know you have a small one but what about those who have big ones??

I have mentioned several times around here so will do it again... uncompressed squashfs is used... tar I use on slax...same reason...takes under a second to save 50MB data on a pentium 3.

Quote:
Thats not fair - you are 5 years ahead of normal puppy users. It's new for the rest of us...

hardly... slax has been doing this for hmm 8 years at least.... its puppy thats a little behind the times in some areas... eg limiting sfs files to 6 is another one... 252 has been possible for a similar time period. I keep making noises and one day someone may bite Very Happy

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
greengeek

Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 2407
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jun 2014, 05:08    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
uncompressed squashfs
Well, thats surely got to be a great example of an oxymoron (love that word!) Smile

Squashed but uncompressed. God, no wonder Linux is hard!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8032

PostPosted: Mon 16 Jun 2014, 05:15    Post subject:  

Unsquashed squash.... indeed.

It solved a problem as embutils tar was crap which messed up the initrd side. Busybox has improved which might be worth a try but (un)squash does the job nicely.

By the way with squash you can choose what is and what is not squashed individually..eg file tables/inodes/data and so on...see help.

An interesting one is the mksquashfs built with lower gzip compression...for a 10-20% size increase you get considerably faster compression...so could save some room without the large time penalty. Could improve matters for such as slower flash by reducing data transfer.

Bear in mind if xz is used its MUCH slower. lzma for slax 6 is the same...very snug files but takes ages to create....fine for making modules but no use for making save files.

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Moat

Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jun 2014, 04:59    Post subject:  

Thanks for the enlightening info, fellas Smile

mikeb wrote:
I am pretty sure flash technology has moved on in the past 10 years...after all SSD drives are based on similar devices.


I had the impression that SSD's have rather advanced "wear leveling" technology (i.e. - TRIM, etc.), running from some additional discrete, on-board controller circuitry - things that USB flash drives don't universally include (AFAIK?). Makes me think any full (non-frugal) installs to USB flash drives should probably be best left to f2fs or similar "flash friendly" formats. But what do I know. Embarassed

mikeb wrote:
For a while I ran windows XP from an SDcard on a netbook...fat32 and did not suffer any data loss / corruption.
What is the spec now for writes?..how would that equate in practical terms for life expectancy...perhaps we need some concrete figures.


Yeppers - I ran an install of Mint 14 on a 16Gb USB stick (just ran Mint's installer as if it were installing to any ol' typical hard drive) - on and off for about a year, and experienced no problems with corrupted/lost files, etc. (and it actually ran pretty darn well - later Mint versions... not so at all, for some reason).

I've read that current NAND sectors are good for anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000 writes... which really doesn't seem like all that much, on a busy every-day system?? Yes - real-world life expectancy data would be nice to see, though...

But - why even worry... just run frugally with a savefile, I say. Smile Easy on the USB, easy to backup/restore, easy to back out of, umm, "experiments gone bad" (Pupsave set to 0=not save), easy to duplicate sticks, etc. Always appeared to my pea-brain as the ideal way to run a Pup... but pea-brains don't store that much data - and corrupt rather easily. Smile

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Blackfish


Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Posts: 97
Location: Nakhon Pathom, Thailand

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jun 2014, 07:17    Post subject:  

Now that it's been mentioned to run Pup on the stick with the frugal install, I simply have to try it.

Thanks for the tip.

I have a very recent copy of Mint I tried to install on the stick, too, but I could not make it work either. Nor could I do it with openSUSE (I have to mention those two because if it were not for Puppy those would be my next choice. They are great operating systems!).

EDIT: Actually, I take that back, I just tried to install Mint on the stick again and it worked like a charm. I tried it a long time ago and it was no go. I think I'm just getting better at this stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 2 [23 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0722s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0045s) ][ GZIP on ]