70.7 MB memory used with minimal install

[Sealbhach]

I've recently bought a low-spec laptop with 512MB of RAM which has not arrived yet so in the meantime I've been playing in Virtualbox with the Ubuntu mini.iso (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD).

Here's a pic of the system monitor:

http://imgur.com/Ty4hX.png

I just installed the server packages and then (following the great Psychocats guide here (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal)) I installed just a few things to get a desktop. I also installed LXDE. So, with no apps open the RAM usage hovers around 69-70MB. I opened 34 tabs in Firefox and opened a few other apps but the RAM didn't get above 190MB or so.

Is ther anything I can do to get the CPU usage down? Or should I worry about that even?

.

[dragos240]

Impressive.

[nw2001]

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool.

I always assumed if I didnt have anything going while using something like LXDE, And you opened up a system monitor, I'd think most of it would be the system monitor it self using resources. *Shrugs*

[dirtylobster]

I built up a "normal" Ubuntu installation from the mini.iso last spring and it was great fun and faster/less recource-intensive than the default bloated installation, was just going to do this again with Karmic, thanks for the heads up! :)

[BuffaloX]

Wow that's a lean mean system. :D

If 16% CPU usage is average, it's pretty high.
Just checked my own CPU usage with Htop it fluctuates from 0 - 18 %.
With Compiz - Firefox - system monitor.
First time I did that with Karmic, and it does seem X uses more CPU power than it used to? Jaunty used to stay under 5%.

Might be worth investigating...

[Sealbhach]

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool.

I always assumed if I didnt have anything going while using something like LXDE, And you opened up a system monitor, I'd think most of it would be the system monitor it self using resources. *Shrugs*

I just checked that, it says system monitor is using 5.5 MB, so not too much. LXDE panels are using another 4MB or so.

.

[urukrama]

Is ther anything I can do to get the CPU usage down?

Use htop instead of gnome system monitor, which is very heavy for a system monitor.

[Warpnow]

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/4032/20091014004137800x600sc.png

You will cut cpu usage alot if you use midori over firefox. Firefox/Gecko aren't too nice on cpu.

[dragos240]

Hmm... If I put this on a live cd/usb, how much ram would it use out-of-the-box.

[xuCGC002]

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/4032/20091014004137800x600sc.png

You will cut cpu usage alot if you use midori over firefox. Firefox/Gecko aren't too nice on cpu.

How much memory does XFCE use total? And I'm steering clear of Xubuntu.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read all of the Conky output. >.<

[MasterNetra]

How much memory does XFCE use total? And I'm steering clear of Xubuntu.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read all of the Conky output. >.<

Not too far behind gnome I hear.

[sertse]

However XFCE!=Xubuntu, just a friendly reminder. :)

69 mb on debian xfce through minimal install.

[Pogeymanz]

I think I'm winning. And no, I did not just do this because of this thread: I have a 32 bit program that I can't get to run in my 64 bit OS, so I run it in VirtualBox.

Ubuntu + Openbox + PCManFM (managing desktop) + tint2 + lxterminal = 47MB RAM

[Pogeymanz]

Not too far behind gnome I hear.

I wish someone would back this claim up. Just because Xubuntu is almost as fat as Ubuntu does not mean that XFCE is as fat as Gnome. XFCE uses 130MB cold on my machine w/ 1GB RAM, whereas Gnome uses closer to 300MB last time I checked (which was a while ago, I admit).

[mpsii]

^^^ I agree. Personally, I think the Xubuntu folks have strayed away from the light/fast roots of what Xubuntu originally started as. My biggest pet peeve is when people suggest Xubuntu to someone with a P3-500 with 512MB RAM and an ATI Radeon 7500 32MB AGP video card. Xubuntu bogs on old hardware.

HOWEVER, XFCE on a more minimalist *buntu install rocks out loud.

[drawkcab]

How hard is it to build up from mini?

I'd like to replace my xubuntu install with vanilla xfce and lxde.

[Warpnow]

How hard is it to build up from mini?

I'd like to replace my xubuntu install with vanilla xfce and lxde.

sudo apt-get install slim xfce4

replace slim with gdm if you prefer it, or just install xinit and use the startx command.

I'd also reccomend apt-getting synaptic, though. You'll also need to apt-get an icon set...there are several in the repos.

[kerry_s]

I've recently bought a low-spec laptop with 512MB of RAM which has not arrived yet so in the meantime I've been playing in Virtualbox with the Ubuntu mini.iso (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD).

Here's a pic of the system monitor:

http://imgur.com/Ty4hX.png

I just installed the server packages and then (following the great Psychocats guide here (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal)) I installed just a few things to get a desktop. I also installed LXDE. So, with no apps open the RAM usage hovers around 69-70MB. I opened 34 tabs in Firefox and opened a few other apps but the RAM didn't get above 190MB or so.

Is ther anything I can do to get the CPU usage down? Or should I worry about that even?

.


with 512mb ram you don't have to skimp, you can run a full gnome if you want. i'm using debian lenny, but ubuntu gnome will work all the same.

if your not using your ram your just wasting it. ;)

[Warpnow]

with 512mb ram you don't have to skimp, you can run a full gnome if you want. i'm using debian lenny, but ubuntu gnome will work all the same.

if your not using your ram your just wasting it. ;)

The more you use at boot, the less you have for programs, and the more your computer will slow down when you start actually using it.

[PrimoTurbo]

That is not that impressive, to be honest.

Here is an openbox setup that I had on my Pentium 3 with 256MB SDRAM, this was arch however.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XUmI7vpDsmQ/Sar7sSy0xPI/AAAAAAAAAII/MOBpbZLvHws/s1600-h/2009-02-28-160546_1024x768_scrot.png

32MB, openbox, conky, lxpanel, nitrogen, terminal, synergy, htop.

You should check out kmandla's stuff, he has even lower footprint setups on his older computers.

[kerry_s]

The more you use at boot, the less you have for programs, and the more your computer will slow down when you start actually using it.

:lolflag: that is not true, unless you have really low ram 64mb->128mb it is not a factor. i used a full gnome on a laptop with 450mhz 256mb ram for years & there was always enough there was no slowdown, maybe in the past that was so, but not with modern kernels.

[PurposeOfReason]

The more you use at boot, the less you have for programs, and the more your computer will slow down when you start actually using it.
Note: I'm just going to say this and the answer to "why is this so?", "how?" "WTFBBQ?" is "because it is", otherwise I could write way too much on the topic.

Learn how computers allocate memory and cpu usage. Just because it is used at boot does not mean it cannot be set free. An app will use the ram it can so if you have 512Mb of RAM it will take X% of it. If you have 1024Mb, it will still take ~X%, this X being larger because it can. So comparing how much mem is free means nothing if you have varying amounts in a system.

[sertse]

Fluxbox + xfdesktop (manging desktop and it like it's right click compared to fluxbox's own). 39/512 ram. This is my real desktop system (my other screen was a netbook), so I'm not using it just for records. ;)

Aside from the above, it loads wbar, tilda (terminal), xfce4-power-manager.

However as the post above me says, total ram is a factor in determining the ram used. That's why we need weight classes for these competitions, or a way to normalise the ram usage haha

tl;dr - I win once we account for hardware :P

Well kmandla does, because nothing should run on those specs....but he somehow still makes it do so!

[Xbehave]

:lolflag: that is not true, unless you have really low ram 64mb->128mb it is not a factor. i used a full gnome on a laptop with 450mhz 256mb ram for years & there was always enough there was no slowdown, maybe in the past that was so, but not with modern kernels.
+1
With 256mb I didn't have enough ram for compiz and firefox3.0*, but i could run compiz + other programs or firefox3.0 w/o compiz

*I've since got more ram, so maybe compiz and firefox3.5 are better now

[Pogeymanz]

That is not that impressive, to be honest.

Here is an openbox setup that I had on my Pentium 3 with 256MB SDRAM, this was arch however.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XUmI7vpDsmQ/Sar7sSy0xPI/AAAAAAAAAII/MOBpbZLvHws/s1600-h/2009-02-28-160546_1024x768_scrot.png

32MB, openbox, conky, lxpanel, nitrogen, terminal, synergy, htop.

You should check out kmandla's stuff, he has even lower footprint setups on his older computers.

Sure, but if you had 512MB RAM, your set up would probably take up almost twice as much as it is now. Memory requirements inflate with more available RAM.

[xuCGC002]

Not too far behind gnome I hear.

You're thinking of Xubuntu. XFCE by itself uses very little RAM.

[cascade9]

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool.

I always assumed if I didnt have anything going while using something like LXDE, And you opened up a system monitor, I'd think most of it would be the system monitor it self using resources. *Shrugs*

Thats accurate in my experience.

[Warpnow]

Note: I'm just going to say this and the answer to "why is this so?", "how?" "WTFBBQ?" is "because it is", otherwise I could write way too much on the topic.

Learn how computers allocate memory and cpu usage. Just because it is used at boot does not mean it cannot be set free. An app will use the ram it can so if you have 512Mb of RAM it will take X% of it. If you have 1024Mb, it will still take ~X%, this X being larger because it can. So comparing how much mem is free means nothing if you have varying amounts in a system.

That's why I'm not (nor has anyone else in the thread I've noticed) measuring total ram used. They are measuring the amount used by the system in the form of buffers and cache.