Toying with puppy, and i notice this little comment at the end of the paragraphs on a frugal install.
- Can Save to entire partition if Linux F.S. and No need to coexist.
So what does this really mean? Ive never noticed any differances in a frugal install to a ext2, compared to a vfat filesystem.
It sounds like its saying i dont need to use a 'save' file if i frugal install to a ext2/3 filesystem.. but I cant figure out how that works. or if its some how automatic, or if its just a incorrect statement.
Thanks for any info.
Frugal install to ext2/3 - 'can save to entire partition'
Re: Frugal install to ext2/3 - 'can save to entire partition
Microsoft partitions don't come close to adequatelydr_willis wrote: So what does this really mean? Ive never noticed any
differances in a frugal install to a ext2, compared to a vfat
filesystem.
supporting Linux directories and files. Naming conventions,
linking, attributes, etc.
Ok..so i've totally missed HOW to use a save to entire partion, instead of usng the 'save file'
I also understand that vfat cant do the same 'file atributes' as ext2/3 and so forth.. but for a 'save file' type frugal install.. its not really an issue is it. Is ext2/3 going to be faster for a frugal install?
I also understand that vfat cant do the same 'file atributes' as ext2/3 and so forth.. but for a 'save file' type frugal install.. its not really an issue is it. Is ext2/3 going to be faster for a frugal install?
Ok if you used a partition to save to you would see the linux file structure on that partition...it would look like a full install but the core of puppy would still be running from pup_xxx.sfs.
So non of the space constraints of using a pup_save and the fixability/flexibility of a frugal setup. Should also get slightly faster access to the files in 'save'
mike
perhaps a diagram would be the way lol
So non of the space constraints of using a pup_save and the fixability/flexibility of a frugal setup. Should also get slightly faster access to the files in 'save'
mike
perhaps a diagram would be the way lol
Yes - I must be overlooking somthing basic here.. what i normally do (testing in a virtualbox system)
Boot live cd, partition hard drive. (sda1 ext2, sda2 swap) run the installer,
run grub installer, install everything to sda1, then reboot.. It then asks to make a save file, i tell it /dev/sda1. It then makes a save file on sda1/puppy420 normally. The file structure on the disk is basically GRUB and 'puppy420' and files within those 2 dirs.
Im just exploring this - beause the other day in the IRC channel someone was asking about making a 40+GB save file, for a frugal installed system. They were using ext2/3 so this seemed like an ideal way to do it. It does seem to be an overlooked and very usefull feature
Boot live cd, partition hard drive. (sda1 ext2, sda2 swap) run the installer,
run grub installer, install everything to sda1, then reboot.. It then asks to make a save file, i tell it /dev/sda1. It then makes a save file on sda1/puppy420 normally. The file structure on the disk is basically GRUB and 'puppy420' and files within those 2 dirs.
Im just exploring this - beause the other day in the IRC channel someone was asking about making a 40+GB save file, for a frugal installed system. They were using ext2/3 so this seemed like an ideal way to do it. It does seem to be an overlooked and very usefull feature
dr_willis,
As far as speed, I think the guest's speed, which is pup_save couldn't exceed the speed of the host.
I host pup_save files on ext3 and it all seems very fast to me. But my reason is simply because running only Linux, there is no need for Microsoft partitions.
I will say, I think life is easier with one primary OS, which is Puppy for me and one set of filesystems which fully support the files.
Bruce
As far as speed, I think the guest's speed, which is pup_save couldn't exceed the speed of the host.
I host pup_save files on ext3 and it all seems very fast to me. But my reason is simply because running only Linux, there is no need for Microsoft partitions.
I will say, I think life is easier with one primary OS, which is Puppy for me and one set of filesystems which fully support the files.
Bruce
that's exactly what its for...a 40GB partition is used as a 40GB save fileIm just exploring this - beause the other day in the IRC channel someone was asking about making a 40+GB save file, for a frugal installed system. They were using ext2/3 so this seemed like an ideal way to do it. It does seem to be an overlooked and very usefull feature
mike