this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
21 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

9458 readers
316 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am not quite ready to switch to a GNU/Linux yet, but I have live booted Linux Mint Xfce yesterday, with most things working, but much worse for launching times, etc. Would it be any different if I installed it on my eMMC drive? Since they are both based on NAND flash memory, I am clueless about it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sga@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Other than memory speed, there is one more blocker - your cpu (ish). live usbs do not store the raw image uncompressed, they would be much larger in size. instead, the file system used (usually squashfs) is compressed (usually zstd (default level 3), but could be lz4, or xz, etc). whenever a file is loaded, it is first uncompressed, and if you have enough memory, you can try the load to ram (or memory, wording may differ) option, where, important parts of image are fist uncompressed and stored in memory, resulting in better performance. Now most cpus are fast enough to decompress, so limiting factor still is likely your storage (usb x.y standard) read speed (and if it stably runs that speed, or is thermally throttled), but if you are on a faster underlying source, it can make a difference.

Anecdotely, I use squashfs to compress most things i keep, and it is fast enough for most purposes, but i have observed that for benchmarks, especially single threaded, there is a significant difference. for geekbench 6, my singlecore score was close to 0.6 times of the actual score, when read from uncompressed, or from memory. for all core, score was nearly 0.85 times of the uncompressed/memory score. Would you realistically feel the difference, no imo. I even have a file system level compression (btrfs, zstd, level 3), and i do not feel a significant difference.

[–] thatonecoder@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have an Intel Celeron N3060. Is this the main reason for the bad loading times in the live boots?

[–] sga@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

this may very well be the case. I can not say for sure, my guess is that most cpus should be able to do something like 200mb/s zstd(3) uncompress, but you can try to benchmark uncompress speeds (there is also a zstd benchmark command), and if it is statistically significantly lower than your storage (use hdparam/dd to benchmark them), then it is indeed your cpu.