Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Linux_Fan

Is it usefull to put more than 128 MB on a Linux machine?

Recommended Posts

Guest coldascold

On my Netserver I have 64MB and never have a problem althrough it dosent ever run in graphical mode but takes alot of hacking from LAN,WWW,CVS, SCSI storage backup system;

 

        total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached

Mem:         62308      56544       5764          0       7336      11924

-/+ buffers/cache:      37284      25024

Swap:       409576      36340     373236

 

Also on standard pc's I have never found a reason for lots of ram with linux

However I can see the need for ram with MS DX Games as they suck you hard disk dry just to load the API up alll be it a larger video card helps only fractionaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should also look at the chips you have now and how many slots you have.

 

E.g. Let's say you have 2 slots and both have a 64Meg chip. In this case, you shoudl probably replace them both with 256 or a 256 and a 128.

 

I would recommend 384 (256+128) at minimum to mostly avoid swapping.. But with prices so cheap, consider at a 256 + 256

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you run free -m, you get physical ram free, buffers, and swap. Could someone explain what the buffers line is for? Is it things that are using ram but can be removed if needed?

 

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found out is that when I added a DVD player with 256 megs of ram the video was a little skittish. So, I doubled the ram to 512 and the DVD plays perfect. As for when I was running just the 256 I didn't noticed a drag on the system so I never thought too much about needing more. Altho I do have this thing for maxing out a mobo. I just looked at my -m and it shows a total mem of 504; used 241; free 262. Swap: total 243; used 0; free 243. As far as I know this seems good. At this point I am on the 'net with Mozilla 1.1 and nothing else happening (that I am aware of).

 

Later. Pepse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew:

 

man free

 

would have revealed the following to you:

SYNOPSIS

      free [-b | -k | -m] [-o] [-s delay ] [-t] [-V]



DESCRIPTION

      free  displays the total amount of free and used physical and swap mem-

      ory in the system, as well as the shared memory and buffers used by the

      kernel.

 

So the shared mem and buffers are kernel related occupied memory.

 

Ah the power of 'man' ;) BTW try xman to get to know some commands... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached

Mem:           503        468         34          0        117        158

-/+ buffers/cache:        192        310

Swap:         2028         98       1929

Total:        2531        566       1964

 

I have 512mb RAM, and 2G swap. Most of the time I don't need 2G of course, but I use a source based distro, and do some extremely heavy video editing. In my experience, the more memory the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the shared mem and buffers are kernel related occupied memory.

 

That makes more sense than the man page. :-) What I'm confused about is how buffers relate to determining how much memory is actually free. I remember reading in a HOW-TO doc to "ignore buffers, because they don't matter". So, are buffers like a system heap? Right now, free -m shows 111Mb of buffers used. I can't imagine the kernel taking that much RAM by itself. What am I missing?

 

Thanks,

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i reckon the more the better ....

786Mb ram, with 500Mb swap

paul@trinity paul $ free

            total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached

Mem:        774476     770040       4436          0      35316     618436

-/+ buffers/cache:     116288     658188

Swap:       498004        312     497692

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. depending on whether you installed texstar's urpmi repository in your urpmi database or not. Texstar's gkrellm is version 2.x while the ones in the mandrake disks are version 1.x.

 

Gkrellm is so useful, it's almost like a wallpaper in my desktop :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest metz2000

[metz@localhost metz]$ free

            total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached

Mem:        159712     155096       4616          0       3468      55568

-/+ buffers/cache:      96060      63652

Swap:       253976       9688     244288

 

I have 4 Mozilla windows, one konsole, The GIMP, Konqueror (file browsing), KDE Help Centre, and KMail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...