Can we install Puppy as a "frugal" install using a save directory rather than a save-file on NTFS?
I'm presuming not, because I've just tried to set up a Xenial (64bit) installation on an existing Windows 7 machine, and when I shut down for the first time, I wasn't offered the option to save to a directory, only to a file.
is there a "tweak" that can work around this?
(pls don't tell me to repartition my Win7 disk with an ext-X fs, its not a solution for me at this time; also, yes, I do know that I can store stuff outside a save file on the NTFS disk)
Failing that, how big have people safely gone with a save file? 8Gig is the biggest I've gone in the past. How about 12G or 16G?
Frugal install (with save directory not save-file) on NTFS
No.
A save folder has to be on something formatted with a Linux format.
A save folder has to be on something formatted with a Linux format.
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
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
@ paulh177:-
Simple reason why is because I have terabytes and terabytes of storage space, so 'having room' is not an issue for me.
I can also confirm that I have never had any issues with save-files running at these kinds of sizes.
Mike.
Everybody tells me I'm a loony, but I run a dozen Puppies, every one of which has its own partition, and every one of which has a pretty large save-file (I prefer these, 'cos they're a lot faster to back-up than a save-directory. The latter are undoubtedly more flexible, but they also have to copy each & every tiny little file separately & individually, whereas a save-file merely copies a single compressed lump of data - hence why it's so much quicker.). The average size of these is 12 GB, though I do have one which runs at 14 GB.paulh177 wrote:Failing that, how big have people safely gone with a save file? 8Gig is the biggest I've gone in the past. How about 12G or 16G?
Simple reason why is because I have terabytes and terabytes of storage space, so 'having room' is not an issue for me.
I can also confirm that I have never had any issues with save-files running at these kinds of sizes.
Mike.
My save file is 256M
I rarely have a save file larger than 256M.
If you need a larger save file, you can make it larger
without losing the data in the save file,
I copied my save file data into an sfs file (adrv_bionicpup64_8.0.sfs 54M)
and boot in ram only, no save file at all.
A Puppy save file is just an ordinary file
like a txt or jpg or avi or mp3 or mp4.
A Puppy save file has exactly the same bytes on a hard drive
that a hard drive partition would have on a hard drive.
They are byte for byte identical.
There is almost no difference between a save file and a partition.
A save file should be as safe as a partition
but the file system that the save file is in, can get corrupted
for example, cross links to the space the save file is using.
So a save file should be almost as safe as a partition.
I rarely have a save file larger than 256M.
If you need a larger save file, you can make it larger
without losing the data in the save file,
I copied my save file data into an sfs file (adrv_bionicpup64_8.0.sfs 54M)
and boot in ram only, no save file at all.
A Puppy save file is just an ordinary file
like a txt or jpg or avi or mp3 or mp4.
A Puppy save file has exactly the same bytes on a hard drive
that a hard drive partition would have on a hard drive.
They are byte for byte identical.
There is almost no difference between a save file and a partition.
A save file should be as safe as a partition
but the file system that the save file is in, can get corrupted
for example, cross links to the space the save file is using.
So a save file should be almost as safe as a partition.
Just noticed Paul is a old hand. Post content deleted.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]
thanks!Mike Walsh wrote: I can also confirm that I have never had any issues with save-files running at these kinds of sizes.
rufwoof wrote:
Just noticed Paul is a old hand. Post content deleted.
I think I might even have contributed a tiny package back in the Puppy 2.x series ... but it's so long ago I can't really remember!
Hi Paul. My earlier (deleted) post was just suggesting to use a save file and that can be any size (to available free disk size, assuming 64 bit), and stored on any filesystem (ntfs/whatever), but to keep data and OS separate i.e. only use the save file for system configuration changes. Mixing data and OS is a bad move IMO as that has greater potential for undesired things slipping in. I store my changes/save in a sfs (changes.sfs) alongside the main sfs, but boot from usb - that is unplugged once booted, so the mbr, bootloader, kernel (vmlinuz) and initramfs (initrd) are all physically isolated. As part of that bootup I checksum the main and change sfs files on hdd so that I know they're unchanged (intrusion detection) where the pre-recorded md5sum and filesize details are also stored on the usb.
Starting with a known 'clean' OS/bootup each and every time is a lot better than the Windows style of trying to keep virus/etc. out. One slip at any historical time even for a instant could have let something undesirable in that then hid itself, perhaps as a sub-system system that remains unseen but present every time you booted after that was installed. If your save file is open to a cracked session then that crack could change things and run the save action to make those changes persistent across reboots. A more likely target however is to modify the boot loader, insert a chained subsystem into the bootup procedure.
Starting with a known 'clean' OS/bootup each and every time is a lot better than the Windows style of trying to keep virus/etc. out. One slip at any historical time even for a instant could have let something undesirable in that then hid itself, perhaps as a sub-system system that remains unseen but present every time you booted after that was installed. If your save file is open to a cracked session then that crack could change things and run the save action to make those changes persistent across reboots. A more likely target however is to modify the boot loader, insert a chained subsystem into the bootup procedure.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]
I run tahrpup in one NTFS machine, I have the session saved in a small pupsave file, and large folders (/opt and other folders inside /root that use to become large) saved directly in the NTFS partition, linked to the puppy structure. Same things people do to keep the pupsave file small (lots of info here at the forum).