Linux Mint 9 from a persistent Live USB

[red-e-made]

I've been experimenting more with running from a persistent Live USB, comparing it to the hard drive experience. I've been doing it often enough that I eventually changed the boot order to USB first, then hard drive, then CD/DVD drive.

I'm trying out Mint 9 on an 8GB Flash drive as I type this. Keep in mind that it's a mid-range priced Flash drive, and also pretty basic. Better models could probably give you a better performance. I have about 4GB of space, so I haven't installed all the packages I normally would. I haven't turned on any desktop effects. I carried over my /.themes and /.icons directories, as well as /.config/google-chrome.

Boot time from a hard drive running the same OS is about 25 seconds to password prompt, then another 10 seconds to a loaded desktop. From a persistent Live USB, boot time is about 55 seconds. Updates download a little bit slower, and applying changes takes considerably longer.

However, applications run as fast as - and in some cases, faster than - from a hard drive. Even more promising, multiple applications can be run simultaneously without any trouble. My CPU rate running Chrome, GIMP and Rhythm Box simultaneously from the Live USB was slightly lower than from my hard drive (12% to 16%, respectively).

I do have to enter my wireless key with each boot, though. And restarting is a problem - the machine will hang at start up. So any advice anyone could give on how to make things more persistent in that area would be most welcome.

Overall, I like the experience of running from a persistent Live USB. I'm soon going to try some resource-heavy tests like running a 3D RPG through PlayOnLinux on it.

Has anyone else given this a try?

[vincent]

While I can't comment on running Mint as a persistent install on an USB, I'd suggest that if you find that you do get more noticeable improvements by running Mint on a USB flash drive than on a hard drive, that you go out and buy a SSD instead. Or you could get a hard drive with a faster rpm, e.g. 7200, 10k, or even 15k rpm (5400 is getting a bit outdated). Running from an USB drive on a regular basis will likely wear down that USB drive fairly quickly...

[red-e-made]

I presumed this would put some wear and tear on the Flash drive. The purpose of this thread was to compare performance between running from the hard drive and running from a persistent Live USB. It also opens up possibilities with regards to having to use a machine that isn't yours, for example, for lightweight browsing-only operations, and so forth. I'm not ultimately seeking to *replace* booting from HD with a Flash drive, in other words.

[libssd]

If I understand correctly, you are running the "LiveCD" version of Mint from a flash drive. Even easier, just do a normal install on a flash drive. Or, if your machine has a bootable card reader slot, install on an SDHC card. I have used both, and observed no difference in speed between USB and SDHC card. However, a SSD is fastest of all because it has a real controller and 0.25ms access time. I picked up an OCZ Vertex 32gb SSD on sale on Amazon last spring for $96. Corsair Nova Series 32 GB SSD is currently available on Amazon for $93.

[red-e-made]

However, a SSD is fastest of all because it has a real controller and 0.25ms access time. I picked up an OCZ Vertex 32gb SSD on sale on Amazon last spring for $96. Corsair Nova Series 32 GB SSD is currently available on Amazon for $93.

The funny thing about this is you reminded me of this article, which outlines replacing the CD/DVD drive with an SSD. I like the idea of having /root on an SSD, and everything else on a HD, contained within a single machine.