Linux_Fan Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 I have an AMD-based PC with 128 MB PC133 (SDRAM) of memory and running under LM 8.0. I want to increase the memory with another 128 MB or 256 MB module. Is this speeding up Linux? But more important: will Linux used all the memory above 128 MB? So, is it usefull? I know that for Windows it is not usefull to put more memory in your PC, because it uses not more than 128 MB (unless your are doing video-editing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregor Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 What is the amount of swap space used when you use it for some time & you have some programs open? Run: free -m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 I have 192 MB SDRAM and ML9.0 can easily use all of it, but barely. My 250MB swap has only reached about 10%-a long time ago-with a lot of intense programs running at the same time, while testing the low-latency patch and preempt patch for the kernel. For normal use with a light wm like fluxbox, I never touch the swap, which is what I want.. If I run KDE or Gnome at normal use the swap hits about 5 to 10% use. If I had 128 I'd be using the swap all the time, but not too much. Linux is excellent with its swap usage. Would I? Heh...if I had 40/50 bucks to burn I get more RAM, because the thought of running a little slower than I should be, drives me nuts. you could also do procinfo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anon Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Linux loves lots of memory, I say loves, not needs ( needs about 64mb min) It uses memory completely different to windoze. If you give it 512 of ram it will allocate all of it, allocate not use. Lots goes into cache, so for instance, if you load up Mozillla or the gimp, close them down and open them up again five minutes later, they will load from cache . Its the most efficient way of using memory, both windoze and apple have been trying to get that efficient use of memory for years ( so I read ) Increasing your ram often makes a bigger improvement in performance than a faster CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippocampe Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 From my experience and what I have read, linux takes advantage of all the memory you put into it. I have 256 Mb and it is almost always full in mdk 8.0, 8.2 and 9.0. Mandrake 9.0 is more memory hungry. I use tabbed browsing a lot while other apps are open and sometimes my swap is used at about 40%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Windows will use more if you have more mem. So will linux. But linux does it in a smarter way. You can see if more mem would be helpful, for instance: $ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 515812 445684 70128 0 25048 229432 -/+ buffers/cache: 191204 324608 Swap: 1044184 0 1044184 So I have 512MB ram, which is well used, no swap is used, so a mem upgrade would not do much for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counterspy Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 The three things that are never a waste are: 1) More memory - I have 384. Others here have a gig. 2) Adding a hard drive - the largest you can afford and will operate under Linux limitations. 3) Adding a CD Burner - Wait until the dust settles before you go DVD burner unless you have either or both of an undeniable need and the Sony model that burns them all. Counterspy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 It also depends on how many services and programs you run at once, more memory for that the merrier. Think of the speed differences between RAM and SWAP (hard drive)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyv Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Well for pc x86 you can put as much memory as the board will support 3gig or so max usually and linux can use it all, but unless you were using many apps at the same time you would not really be using most of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 If u r using modern desktops like kde3.x and gnome2.x, 128MB is the minimum u need. But 192MB or 256Mb is what is recommended. I remember, KDE1.x was ok with 64MB but those days are gone. Here's my free output: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 256956 253160 3796 0 18688 80600 -/+ buffers/cache: 153872 103084 Swap: 497936 13676 484260 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 ML9.0-KDE3.0.3-running 2 Aterms one with wvdial, Evolution, Gkrellm, and Opera+3 windows, right now. 192MB SDRAM free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 191112 186468 4644 0 7680 76468 -/+ buffers/cache: 102320 88792 Swap: 562192 0 562192 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyv Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 And here my work stations free output: [john@administrator john]$ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 248852 243844 5008 0 39380 70376 -/+ buffers/cache: 134088 114764 Swap: 248968 57808 191160 [john@administrator john]$ running KDE 3.03, 3 Konquerer directory windows, mozilla 1.1(navigator with 7 tabs open, mail window open), 1 Konsole terminal window, & 3 instances of Kwrite. besides running apache & mysql servers. very average running tasks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linux_Fan Posted January 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 Thanks for those reaction. I think its clear now: additional a minimum of 128 MB or even 256 MB is recommended. I will soon buy some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ral Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 I use my Linux OS as a desktop. I think 256 MB is about right for a simple desktop setup. On the machine with 128MB of RAM it uses the swap file. On the 256MB, it utilizes most of the 256MB but does not use the SWAP partition as far as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 I have an Athlon XP 2100+ with 512 MB of RAM. I think that amount is just about optimal... Much more would possible create a headache (i.e. having to specify that there is 1GB of RAM for example,... I use Mandy 8.2 and it was quirky that way). I do a fair amount of gaming and some of that in WineX, so the more RAM the better. It depends really on what you use your system for. 128 MB is good for simple desktop use. My old AMD K6-2 had that much and ran fine (except for AGP, but that was due to the ALi 1541 chipset). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.