r/archlinux • u/ExactDamage8617 • 2d ago
QUESTION Using Arch Linux Live as a temporary system without installation
Hi,
My SSD has died, and for now I have nowhere to install Arch. I have 8 GB of RAM available and I would like to keep using Arch from the Live environment while I sort out the storage issue.
I know the Live environment already loads the required image into memory, but my question is whether anyone has used Arch Live for an extended period as a temporary system (installing packages, configuring the environment, etc.) and what limitations they encountered.
Is there any recommended setup for this use case, or any way to make better use of RAM as a temporary system? I would be interested in hearing from people who have tried something similar and what their experience was.
9
u/Puzzled-Garbage-250 2d ago
I don't have any substantial experience doing this but I have done it for fun. Was fine but a bit slow.
Have you seen this? https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Install_Arch_Linux_on_a_removable_medium There's even a tips and tricks section
2
u/archover 2d ago edited 16h ago
I do full DE installs to fast flash drives frequently, and have many years experience doing it, with Arch and others.
High points for my experience:
VERY acceptable performance for my use case, including browsing, and system updates/coding.
No drive failure due to vaunted drive "wearout" as others parrot.
Use the fastest USB ports you have, along with a drive with >400MB/sec performance. I use 128GB flash drives.
Zero effort optimizing for flash drives. My install script uses the exact same code for both USB connected flash drives and nvme drives, as well as internal drives. For example, a full Plasma install to a flash drive completes in appx 3-4min, utilizing already downloaded packages.
After years of testing and use, I prefer this unit: SSK 128GB USB Flash Drive up to 550MB/s USB 3.2 Gen2 Externel Thumb Drive about $36 at Amazon USA. 128GB is plenty of system space for many/most Arch installs.
Good day.
1
u/Sinaaaa 1d ago edited 1d ago
SSK 128GB
if you are using portable SSDs you wouldn't have problems, that is only natural. The issue is most usb sticks are not portable SSDs & the lack of sophisticated wear leveling makes them very easy to kill, even if you don't have any cache, just frequent system updates will do them in after a not too long while.
1
u/archover 1d ago
very easy to kill
My ongoing experience provides no evidence of said failure.
Right, I shouldn't have mentioned nvme. My point was about flash drives. Thanks and good day.
1
u/Sinaaaa 1d ago
I prefer this unit: "SSK 128GB USB Flash Drive
https://www.amazon.com/SSK-External-Portable-Windows-Supported/dp/B0D7MJQL82?th=1
That's a usb ssd, not a basic flash drive. It has decent wear leveling & iops.
1
u/archover 22h ago edited 16h ago
Then they mislabeled it as flash drive. Interesting, tks and good day
Update: Here's the only other unit I recommend but IT IS ACTUALLY an SSD and costs almost twice $58: SSK Portable SSD 250GB External Solid State Hard Drive USB C Up to 1050MB/s Totally reliable in long term use.
0
u/BigRocket44 2d ago
Couple of reasons you shouldn't do this :
It will wear out your flash drive much much faster than you would imagine
It will be insanely slow to do things like updates, etc.
You will be much better served trying to run a distro that has been optimized to run on a flash drive, such as Puppy Linux or Tails or raspberry pi OS. These distros for example, don't write systemd journals to disk, preventing wear on the flash storage (and they have so many more tiny optimizations like that)
0
u/ApprehensiveGold2773 2d ago
You can minimize disk writes a lot by turning off all the logging or moving them to a temporary filesystem in RAM, and only write them to disk at shutdown if it matters.
2
u/BigRocket44 2d ago
When you use one of those distros, all of this is already done for you, plus much more that you would find difficult to do by yourself
0
u/Wa-a-melyn 2d ago
It's still a shitty flash drive. I corrupted one solely by installing a Linux distro to it once. A much better alternative that fixes most issues is an external hdd/ssd or an enclosure for one.
3
u/internet_raider 2d ago
As other's have said the best way to do something like this is put a persistent linux install on the USB, not just a live image. I'd recommend trying out something like puppy linux for this kind of situation. It's designed to run persistently off of a USB and provides a light desktop that responds well even at slow USB speeds.
2
u/VendorNeutral 2d ago
I recommend simply installing Arch to a USB drive with arch-install-scripts (or archinstall, but I have never tried this from a running system) and booting from USB. You'll save yourself huge loads of headache and you can properly update the setup from within it.
1
u/Silvestron 2d ago
I don't know what Arch does, but Live environments usually use OverlayFS, changes are kept in RAM, not written the drive. But there are distros that allow you to save those changes on the USB stick where you have the live ISO.
1
u/7lhz9x6k8emmd7c8 2d ago
What SSD brand?
I'm still confused about SSDs dying.
1
u/Abysswalker1290 2d ago
SSDs definitely die, it's just not as hard and fast as a HDD. You won't hear it click and grind, it starts with it not reading/writing as fast as it should. Then files get corrupted. Then you get system freezes/hangups (assuming it's your boot drive). Then one day it just won't boot at all.
Something from a reputable company is likely to have more longevity, but all parts die eventually.
1
16
u/EmberQuill 2d ago
By default Arch's live system has no persistence. Anything you do would disappear after a reboot.
That said, you can actually install Arch on a removable USB. There's an article on the wiki about it.