I have done some basic testing, and the speed of the USB stick you use does make a noticeable difference on the boot time of whatever you install on it.
If I recall correctly, A low speed USB 2.0 stick took around 30-60 seconds to load (either time to login screen or time to reach a blinking cursor for something like an arch install disk). If this is something for occasional use, even this works perfectly fine.
Slightly faster USB 3 sticks in the 100MB/s range can be had for only around $5-15 USD and work significantly better, maybe 7-15 seconds. These usually have assymetric read/write speeds, such as 100MB/s read and 20MB/s write, but for a boot disk the read speed is the primary factor.
Some high end flash drives can reach 500-1000MB/s and would load in only a few seconds. A high speed 256GB stick might cost $25-50, and a 1TB stick maybe $75-150.
An NVMe enclosure might cost $20-30 for a decent quality 1GB/s USB 3 enclosure, or $80-100 for a thunderbolt enclosure in the 3GB/s range so long as your hardware supports it, plus another $50-100 for a 1TB NVMe drive itself. This would of course be the fastest, but it is also bulkier than a simple flash drive, and I think you are at the point of diminishing returns in terms of performance to cost.
I would say up to you on what you are willing to spend, how often you realistically intend to use it, and how much you care about the extra couple seconds. For me, I don’t use boot disks all that often, so an ordinary 100MB/s USB 3 stick is fine for my needs even if I have faster options available.
My particular testing was with an SSK SD300, which is roughly 500MB/s up and down. I have benchmarked this and confirmed it meets its rating.
I have thought about buying something like a Team Group C212 or Team Group Spark LED, which are rated at 1000MB/s. The 256GB version of the C212 is available on places like Newegg and Amazon for around $27 USD at time of writing, but they make variants as high as 1TB.
Now you’ve borned so much executable type. Why can’t you release the source code of the software to “make sure there isn’t malware” and pledge and unveil it.
This sounds like a lot of my experiences with Linux. Before I went back to Ubuntu which mainly solved the specific issues I had. Not saying it will solve someone elses.
As a noobie to Linux I have a question: I decided to try ubuntu (haven’t yet) because of what I think is called the Gnome Desktop Environment, which from what I understand is what gives it all of those sleek animations and tab switcher and stuff. Am I correct about this? Or do all distros have this? I care a lot about aesthetics and stuff like that—the main reason I’m interested in Linux, other than learning about something new, is the idea of being able to fully customize the look and feel
You will be able to get GNOME as the default desktop environment in many distributions and then install what extensions you want to change both appearance and function: extensions.gnome.org
hope this helps with the dumbster fire of the virtualbox version in the official Ubuntu repositories
(virtual box basically “breaks” on Ubuntu LTS once a newer HWE kernel gets released unless you install a newer version of it, leading to hundreds of support threads every time this happens)
Use whatever you want for personal. But I would suggest trying to use containers for hosting if you haven’t already. It really blows the idea of needing a stable OS out of the water since you can just declare everything you want in a config file and tear down and spin up with the app you need ready in less than a minute.
You can use Ubuntu still of course in a container. But things get really interesting when you use smaller attack surface distros like Alpine, BusyBox, or even a distroless container.
Unless you want to run everything in the cloud you still need something bare metal. In my case I run Debian VMs on my proxmox cluster with docker and podman containers.
Along with the recently merged Intel OpenGL and Vulkan driver support for Arrow Lake next-generation Core processors with Mesa 24.1, it looks like the i915 kernel graphics driver support for Arrow Lake will be all-set with the upcoming Linux 6.9 kernel cycle.
Sent out this week was the newest drm-intel-next pull beginning to queue more feature code that will go into the Linux 6.9 merge window.
Most notable there is adding new graphics PCI IDs to be found with the Intel Arrow Lake processors.
So with just needing the new PCI IDs and not gating them behind the “force_probe” option or any other extra steps over Meteor Lake, with Linux 6.9 + Mesa 24.1 it looks like the integrated graphics of Arrow Lake will be good to go.
Linux 6.9 stable should be out around the middle of the year while Arrow Lake processors are expected in H2’2024.
There’s already been much Arrow Lake driver enablement work in other areas of the kernel – not to mention Intel Linux engineers already being very busy with enabling its successor, Lunar Lake with its exciting Xe2 graphics.
The original article contains 259 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 29%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Would it be possible to run parsec or moonlight on these? I tried parsec on cb++ in the past but it was missing some libra58 dependency thing for it to run
OK I got parsec running on cb++ by forcing parsec to install and ignore libjpeg8 following some reddit users comment. Perfect for my wyse 5470 thin client
linux
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.