gcmartin wrote:Can someone explain, simply, why a PET would be preferred or why a SFS would be preferred for a service that is to be used in LIveDVD and will survive over a reboot (session-save)?
Thanks in advance
Personal preference is often the deciding factor. That said, SFS files are ideal for large apps e.g., LibreOffice or combo-packs of many apps, e.g., Mariner, KDE, because they reside compressed, typically at /mnt/home and use little or no space in the save file. PETS on the other hand, are easily installed without rebooting and thus are ideal for small packages or frequent updates, e.g., Sylpheed, printer drivers, Flash, browsers. PETS are a bit easier to build and often use pinstall.sh and puninstall.sh scripts ideal for handling setup and uninstall tasks.
I don't have enough experience with multi-session CD/DVD mode, however I think SFS would be preferred because they reside compressed. Regarding a service, KDE I think, has many of them and works very well for me as an SFS. Services built into Lighthouse/Puppy e.g., cupsd, dhcpcd are typically in an SFS, (albeit the main file.)
SFS files are designed to load individually, each in a separate
read-only layer, whereas PETS are all in the same read-write (top save file) layer. There is a limit to the number of SFS files that can be loaded at the same time, (40 in Lighthouse) whereas the number of PETS is practically unlimited.
[Edit:] I'm currently running LHP with 19 SFS files (not counting the main file and zWine) as well as 10 PETS.
Because SFS files are layered in
below the core (main file) layer, they are less apt to cause version conflicts with system files and shared libraries. So if the same files are in both an SFS/PET and the core system, system stability and reliability is usually not affected by the SFS, but could be with a PET.
Hope that helps,
TazOC