Stop Microsoft

Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: sporkme on 23 November 2005, 09:47

Title: knoppix on usb key
Post by: sporkme on 23 November 2005, 09:47
certainly not the first write-up on this, but i did not find this particular page posted here and several of my friends and customers have had success with this walkthrough.

step 1:  download and burn knoppix with nero or the like, and boot it:

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix-mirrors/index-en.html

step 2:  follow this howto:

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/179

makes a nice portable.  note that a swap partition could potentially agressively damage a usb key.

have fun
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: Jenda on 23 November 2005, 21:36
AFAIK - Ubuntu has this option too now.
It's the Debian family after all...
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 23 November 2005, 22:29
Quote from: sporkme

makes a nice portable.  note that a swap partition could potentially agressively damage a usb key.

have fun

Sounds fun ... except for the fast that most USB keys aren't that cheap ... especially at the size you need them ... can you afford to burn one ? probably.

What would be cooler would be to install it on a Firewire key (http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=480006) (http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail%7Edpno%7E480006.asp)
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: sporkme on 24 November 2005, 04:32
i used a 1 gb key from dane-elec that goes for $53, well worth it even if it burns up.  guess i had better find a way to keep a backup image and maintain it up-to-date in case of failure.

i love to look on customers' faces when the comp they bring in for repair boots up to a brave new os just because i stuck a usb key in it.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Pathos on 26 November 2005, 01:03
DamnSmallLinux is better, its a cut down version of Knoppix (only 50mb) and is very nice to use. That means it easily fits on a $5 128mb stick with a couple of expansion packages and personal files.

Also wouldn't require a swap drive on a modern pc cause of the low memory requirements.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 26 November 2005, 01:27
Cool :thumbup: ... I was looking for a version that doesn't require a swap file ... I'd hate to waste money on a burnt USB key
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: Kintaro on 1 December 2005, 11:24
Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H
Sounds fun ... except for the fast that most USB keys aren't that cheap ... especially at the size you need them ... can you afford to burn one ? probably.

What would be cooler would be to install it on a Firewire key (http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=480006)

NEWSFLASH: Firewire is slower than USB 2.0.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 1 December 2005, 11:33
Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H
Cool :thumbup: ... I was looking for a version that doesn't require a swap file ... I'd hate to waste money on a burnt USB key

Knoppix doesn't need a swap if you've got more than 256MB of memory.

EDIT:
I've run it at work on a doze box with 128MB and no swap, but that was a year ago and I don't know if the latest version will run on that machine.

You should be able to run Damn Small Linux on a 64MB machine with no swap.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Jack2000 on 1 December 2005, 21:27
why need the stick to save the swap file ???
use ram disk for it instead
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 1 December 2005, 21:57
That's a stupid idea, the whole point of having a swap file is in case you run out of memory, a RAM disk will just eat up more RAM and slow things down. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 2 December 2005, 00:02
Quote from: Kintaro
NEWSFLASH: Firewire is slower than USB 2.0.

Not really ... I'm pretty sure it's the opposite ... Firewire is 16 % to 70 % faster than USB 2.0 ;)

Articles: One (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html) , Two (http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm)

Question: Which is faster Hi-Speed USB 2.0 or FireWire?
Answer: In sustained throughput FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.
 
    Question: If Hi-Speed USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the sustained throughput.

:D
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: hm_murdock on 2 December 2005, 01:01
FW is hardware-driven, using its own controllers for data maneuvering and DMA, while USB2 uses software and the main CPU for nearly everything. USB is also one of those Microsoft/Compaq/Intel alliance things from the mid 1990s... of course it's inferior.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Kintaro on 2 December 2005, 03:44
Interesting, you should follow the point that the majority of drives support better USB 2.0 compared to Firewire. Of course if your using it to link 2 machines its fucking badarse.
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: themacuser on 3 December 2005, 05:45
Quote from: Kintaro
NEWSFLASH: Firewire is slower than USB 2.0.



Wrong. Firewire can transfer constantly at 400MBPS. USB 2 goes in bursts of 480.
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: Kintaro on 3 December 2005, 05:53
Quote from: themacuser
Wrong. Firewire can transfer constantly at 400MBPS. USB 2 goes in bursts of 480.

Wow, your actually right after checking some things. I just read some quick specs and I got the wrong idea.

The problem with swapping to flash is that flash is not meant to have that many damn read/write operations.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 3 December 2005, 19:16
Quote from: Kintaro
Interesting, you should follow the point that the majority of drives support better USB 2.0 compared to Firewire. Of course if your using it to link 2 machines its fucking badarse.

Well, as you know, firewire is only really popular with macs, so even though USB 2.0 is slower, a lot more computers have it compared to firewire. I just thought that the reason that usb keys tend to burn out when they have a swap partition on them is probably because they weren't designed for constant transfer at max speed, unlike firewire.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Pathos on 4 December 2005, 00:59
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez
Knoppix doesn't need a swap if you've got more than 256MB of memory.

EDIT:
I've run it at work on a doze box with 128MB and no swap, but that was a year ago and I don't know if the latest version will run on that machine.

You should be able to run Damn Small Linux on a 64MB machine with no swap.

it mostly works on my 22mg ram laptop :) except for firefox
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: piratePenguin on 4 December 2005, 01:02
Quote from: Pathos
it mostly works on my 22mg ram laptop :) except for firefox
Recommending dillo (http://www.dillo.org/).
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: toadlife on 12 December 2005, 09:19
Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H
Not really ... I'm pretty sure it's the opposite ... Firewire is 16 % to 70 % faster than USB 2.0 ;)

Articles: One (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html) , Two (http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm)
:D

From article one:
[indent]The Windows PC implementation of USB 2.0 puts the Mac to shame. Today we tested the same USB 2.0 drive/enclosure on a Windows PC (3GHz Pentium 4) with built-in USB 2.0 on the motherboard, similar to Apple's approach. We measured 33MB/s READ and 27MB/s WRITE.
[/indent]

So, USB 2.0 is much slower than firewire...if you're running a Mac. On a PC, it's marginally slower. Could it be that firewire died out because it was more expensive to impliment than USB, not worth the extra cost for the tiny improvement in performance? Cost is everything in the commodity PC world.
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: WMD on 12 December 2005, 18:02
That page also says:
Quote
NOTE: We formatted the test drive as "Mac OS Extended" or HFS+ when testing on the Mac. Then we reformatted the drive in NTFS when I moved the drive to the Windows PC.

So it could be the filesystem too.  They should've tested both with FAT32.
Title: Re: knoppix on usb key
Post by: MarathoN on 12 December 2005, 18:56
Quote from: WMD
That page also says:

So it could be the filesystem too.  They should've tested both with FAT32.

Agreed, a benchmark of this sort can only be compared if you are using the same filesystem on both machines.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Lead Head on 12 December 2005, 19:28
here is some more info

USB 2.0 is 480mbits/s or 60Mbytes/s
Firewire 400 is 400mbits/s or 50Mbytes/s
Firewire 800 is 800mbits/s or 100mbytes/s
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: WMD on 12 December 2005, 21:16
As I told you in another thread, those are simply the rated speeds.  None of them will run at those speeds, and certainly not sustained.
Title: Re: linux on usb key
Post by: Pathos on 14 December 2005, 12:00
Quote from: piratePenguin
Recommending dillo (http://www.dillo.org/).

doesn't work in 4 bit colour either :(