usb install versus live-usb install

[Mikkel L. Ellertson]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> I saw the announcement that F9 supports the live-usb install.
> Apparently, (sounds like magic), the live-usb install can go onto a
> usb stick and then rpms can be upgraded on that disk without blowing
> anything up.  Since the live-usb is a compressed file system, I'm
> surprised this works.
> 
> Until now, I've been installing Fedora on USB devices through the
> ordinary approach.  It only takes a bit of care with the initrd
> creation to make sure a system starts off the usb.  The system is not
> compressed into such a small space as the live-usb image, but it works
> fine.
> 
> Question: does the live-usb approach have other benefits or costs I'm
> not aware of?  If I have an 80 Gig hard disk, is there any benefit to
> live-usb?
> 
> The live-usb approach looks easier to maintain, one probably does not
> have to do a lot of manual adjustment to grub.conf or such.  What
> else?
> 
If I am reading thing correctly, the live-usb setup uses a 
compressed image like the live-cd does, plus a memory overlay to 
hold changes/upgrades. So it would tend to let you pack more 
programs on the USB memory stick, at least before you do a lot of 
updates. But there may be a performance hit using the compressed 
file system.

I can not see a lot of advantage, and a lot of disadvantage using it 
on an 80 gb hard drive.

Mikkel
-- 

   Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080520/b8b7ce35/attachment-0001.sig>