- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated Sep 4-11:06 pm by olsztyn.
-
Posts
-
Dzhigit
Hello. I think I may have just corrupted a 2nd flash drive after only light use, including a few remasters with GZIP compression. It arbitrarily shows “Inpput/Output Error”s after some time, which requires a restart, but not even live-remaster or persistence works. I read that the Flash Friendly FileSystem (F2FS) is much better for flash storage longevity, including SD cards, than Ext4. But the antiX Live USB Maker only supports Ext4 for the main partition. I’m thinking of switching to an SSD with a USB to SATA adapter for my LiveUSB needs. Has anyone ever tried a LiveUSB with F2FS, preferably antiX? It looks like live-usb-maker would need a lot of modifications.
Between lz4, gzip, and xz, is there any that’s better for flash longevity when remastering?
olsztyn
But the antiX Live USB Maker only supports Ext4 for the main partition.
Hi Dzhigit…
I do not think the quoted statement is really entirely correct. I have used BtrFS for antiX main partition on flash drive and it worked perfectly fine. I have not yet tested but I expect that other file systems, such as F2FS should work as well. I will try when have the time but I suggest you can try initially to test F2FS using the following:
– Live USB Maker copy antiX to test flash drive, specifying data partition, which you can initially format as EXT4.
– Create copy antiX instances on such ‘data partition’, except the Boot partition leave on the original partition
– Convert the ‘data partition’ to F2FS
– Boot antiX instances from F2FS partitionAs mentioned, I used BtrFS a lot for this but do not know if it is easier on flash media or not. Just to remember, the beauty of Live antiX on flash is that after initial creation it is almost entirely read I/O. Almost no write I/O when booting or operation.
Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters
Wallon
Hello.
While reading your thread, I did some research on the internet. I saw many tests that showed that f2fs formatting for USB and SSD drives was faster than ext4. The tests were up to double the difference.
So I installed an antiX 21 full version from a Live USB stick on another 64GB Samsung USB 3.1 stick formatted in f2fs in legacy mode (MBR). I used to use the same drive in ext4. Everything worked very well, the wonderful antiX handles f2fs formatting very well. I divided my key into 3 primary partitions. The 1st for swap, the 2nd for root with grub (f2fs formatting), the 3rd partition in exFAT to share data with Windows.
What I found. antiX 21 is much faster with f2fs formatting. It is especially for the installation of the distribution, the installation of firefox, google chrome or installing a new kernel. Even to do the simple command “sudo apt update”, the index is much faster.
Starting programs (LibreOffice, Google Chrome, Firefox…) is also faster with f2fs formatting.
You have convinced me, I think I will use this f2fs formatting and I will abandon ext4 for my USB sticks or SSDs.
It’s obvious, even the USB stick is less hot with f2fs formatting.
Thanks also to anticapitalista for this nice distribution.
I wonder why this type of formatting is not recommended more on the forum for USB drives.
Best regards,
Wallon
Brian Masinick
It looks like F2FS is a viable filesystem, not only for USB, but also for any NAND-based storage devices, which would also include NVME SSD, so this is very good news as many people use various solid state media instead of physical rotating CD, DVD, BlueRay and hard disk drives.
--
Brian MasinickI do not think the quoted statement is really entirely correct. I have used BtrFS for antiX main partition on flash drive and it worked perfectly fine. I have not yet tested but I expect that other file systems, such as F2FS should work as well. I will try when have the time but I suggest you can try initially to test F2FS using the following:
I couldn’t find the options for live-usb-maker script to do that but I’ll look again, and live-usb-maker GUI. Thanks, I’ll try your method if necessary.
So I installed an antiX 21 full version from a Live USB stick on another 64GB Samsung USB 3.1 stick formatted in f2fs in legacy mode (MBR). I used to use the same drive in ext4. Everything worked very well, the wonderful antiX handles f2fs formatting very well. I divided my key into 3 primary partitions. The 1st for swap, the 2nd for root with grub (f2fs formatting), the 3rd partition in exFAT to share data with Windows.
What I found. antiX 21 is much faster with f2fs formatting. It is especially for the installation of the distribution, the installation of firefox, google chrome or installing a new kernel. Even to do the simple command “sudo apt update”, the index is much faster.
Thanks for trying. I haven’t tried yet so that’s promising to hear, especially that the drive gets less hot. I keep getting I/O errors on my drives with Ext4.
It looks like F2FS is a viable filesystem, not only for USB, but also for any NAND-based storage devices, which would also include NVME SSD, so this is very good news as many people use various solid state media instead of physical rotating CD, DVD, BlueRay and hard disk drives.
Before starting this topic I was reading about F2FS, and read these Phoronix articles:
Linux 5.14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS
F2FS vs. EXT4 File-System Performance With Intel’s Clear Linux
Ext4 performance looks very hard to compete with. BTRFS is still slower than Ext4. F2FS did alright on that NVMe SSD. But it really shines on flash drives, SD cards, eMMC, and other lower quality flash storage than NVMe.- This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by Dzhigit. Reason: put URLs on new lines
couldn’t find the options for live-usb-maker script to do that but I’ll look again, and live-usb-maker GUI.
Hi Dzhigit…
I realize the way I worded was not clear. I did not mean to imply that F2FS or BtrFS support is built in Live-USB-Maker. It is not. It allows you to format partitionas EXT4. What I meant was that antiX does operate on BtrFS file system with no issues that I noticed. After creating a separate partition (such as via Live-USB-Maker) to run antiX copies, such antiX installations are running fine after the file system has been converted from EXT4 to BtrFS. The same I would expect when other than BtrFS or EXT4 file systems are used to run antiX, such as F2FS.Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters
oops
… Yes F2FS is fine, but not always, see here:
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2108260-PTS-SSDS978300&sor… Yes F2FS is fine, but not always, see here:
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2108260-PTS-SSDS978300&sorThat is the Linux 5.14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS I sent earlier. That test was on an NVMe SSD, which has firmware that already does wear leveling and other stuff that F2FS does. Cheap flash storage, like USB drives, and eMMC on cell phones, aren’t as smart and rely on F2FS to do those things for them. For me, the performance of antiX is already fine, but it overheats and corrupts flash drives quickly.
- This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by Dzhigit.
oops
…the performance of antiX is already fine, but it overheats and corrupts flash drives quickly.
Ok, good to know then.
- This reply was modified 8 months ago by oops.
anticapitalista
Cheap flash storage, like USB drives, and eMMC on cell phones, aren’t as smart and rely on F2FS to do those things for them. For me, the performance of antiX is already fine, but it overheats and corrupts flash drives quickly.
Anyone who wants to run antiX from usb devices should buy good quality ones.
I gave up running antiX from a cheap usb2 device and I now prefer a frugal install instead (way better even on ‘cheap’ ssd devices.Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Anyone who wants to run antiX from usb devices should buy good quality ones.
I gave up running antiX from a cheap usb2 device and I now prefer a frugal install instead (way better even on ‘cheap’ ssd devices.Sorry, I meant cheap relative to NVMe SSDs. Most recently I ran antiX from a PNY USB 3.2 64GB and after some time, it would start getting “Input/Output Error”s, at which point nothing would work and I had to reboot.
anticapitalista
Was that a full install or ‘live’ install?
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
the performance of antiX is already fine, but it overheats and corrupts flash drives quickly.
This could happen when a lot of write I/O is going to the flash drive, such as traditionally installed OS. When flash USB media is used as Live installation, particularly with no persistence then almost all I/O is Read and therefore no corruption of the flash media occurs.
I am using antiX Live on many flash USB sticks, which I plug to different laptops and have not experienced failure as yet.
Traditionally installed OS would kill such flash media pretty quickly.
This is to expand on the question anticapitalista is asking…Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_ParametersWas that a full install or ‘live’ install?
I used Live USB maker to make a USB from antiX net. I did several remasters, which probably uses a lot of I/O. That’s why I was asking if any of the compression methods put less stress on the USB.
- This reply was modified 8 months ago by Dzhigit.
I did several remasters, which probably uses a lot of I/O.
Instead of many remasters directly on flash media I suggest to set up antiX Frugal instance on computer and remaster Frugals until finalized configuration. Only the final would be cloned to flashed media via Live-USB-Maker. This way you minimize writing to flash media.
Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
