Talk:OSE Linux Persistence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNetbootin claims to have a persistence option for ubuntu distros. I couldn't get it to work. --Dorkmo (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

---

I've used persistence on USB for over 10 years now as my primary system (4+ hours/day) and will share some thoughts.

It has been great, I can move my programs, data, and OS from workstation to workstation with a breeze. From a desktop to a laptop, a library computer, or computer at work at times even. I'll never going back to installing Linux on a HDD. I use HDDs on workstations for storing data, or even making a ~8GB swap file if I need more system memory for some big task (e.g. big FreeCAD model).

I don't use unetbootin, ISOs, or any other setups, just Debian's 'persistence' partition. On Ubuntu the labeling of this partition may be 'casper-rw' instead of 'persistence'. It is very simple, you have the second partition labeled 'persistence' with a configuration file, and Debian's live-boot scripts handle everything.

live-boot Squashfs/Persistence

Benefits:

1. Over a full install to USB, you'll see a much faster boot, because the 'live' partition is compressed (squashfs) and is thus read into memory faster compared to random reads of various uncompressed files from the USB as they're needed during the boot process. Mine boots within 20 or so seconds.
2. The performance and responsiveness of a squashfs/persistence setup is better than a full install, because the squashfs may be loaded to memory (toram) occupying around 600-800MB RAM, and is thus not a bottleneck on reads/writes to the USB slowing the system down like you'd see in a full install to USB.

Limitations:

1. A 64-bit install won't work on a 32-bit machine
2. A USB with /etc/X11/xorg.conf set to use an NVIDIA GPU driver:
   1. Will not boot graphically on an Intel GPU system but to a virtual console.
   2. This can be mitigated by editing xorg.conf and rebooting. Or possibily without rebooting with some wizardry like rmmod and then startx, but I don't recall off the top of my head.
3. Copy-on-write aufs/overlayfs (whetever distro has chosen) has some limitations:
   1. Read-only 'live' partition needs to be updated whenever libc or linux-image are updated, or the system won't boot. So it needs to be mounted read-write and in order to do so 'toram' kernal boot parameter must be used. I work around this problem manually via inspecting apt output before installing anything, but this chore can be mitigated via an apt hook which I've not written yet.
   2. 'live' partition containing the squashfs should only have packages which are not updated often, being core packages, and not something like firefox which is updated often. This will minimize the size of the squashfs.
   3. When Debian stable is updated to the next revision, the linux-image must be updated, and the squashfs recompressed. To do this, all non-core packages must be removed, the distro upgraded, the squashfs recompressed, and then non-core packages reinstalled. This can also be scripted and I have some non-robust helper scripts I've written.
4. Flash memory has limitations, where sequential reads/writes are ~10000x faster than random reads/writes. Due to this, there should always be at least 3GB free on the 'persistence' filesystem, or else files become fragmented and the any application blocking on reads/writes will hang from very slow reading and writing. In this circumstance it may be a number of minutes before such applications respond again, but you're free to use this time to do other things with already opened applications, like use the web browser or read opened documents.

I personally use a lightweight Debian distro (not Ubuntu!) to minimize RAM footprint, minimize squashfs size, and maximize responsiveness. It is all instantaneous on USB3 (was a bit sluggish on USB2 on an older 4GB stick when I first started). I recommend at least a 32GB stick.

Once the apt hook is implemented and distro-upgrade script polished, this should be a very nice option for interested users.

I do not recommend modern Samsung, Sandisk, or any other cheap off-brands for this "heavy" use. Good chance they'll fail within a year and be too hot to touch. Buy from Toshiba/Kioxia, the inventors of flash memory. Yes their performance as shown in benchmarks isn't as good, nor are they inexpensive, but they are reliable and will last years.

Encryption

Pros:

1. Sure it may be useful if for example, you forget the drive in an internet cafe or library. Or have something you don't want to turn up in investigation.

Cons:

1. It costs additional CPU & energy usage.
2. Encryption offers zero "online"/mounted protection, e.g. encryption does not protect against a web browser vulnerability allowing disk access. Mental energy would be better spent on 'hardening' the system.
3. Harder to recover data when things break. Big headache.

--Andrewusu (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)