View Full Version : [ubuntu] Basic Karmic install-Memory use with Fluxbox?
GeneralSpecific
January 28th, 2010, 12:43 AM
Does anyone have a basic Ubuntu Karmic install that they are using Fluxbox with?
Could you post the results of "top" or "htop"?
I am currently running a command line Ubuntu install built up with Fluxbox and 'nautilus --no-desktop", and I would like to compare how much memory I have saved compared to a full Ubuntu install using Fluxbox. Plus a comparison of some of the services that run in the background.
Currently I am only using about 40MB RAM with no programs other than "htop" running. I'll gladly post mine if anyone is interested.
Thank You
-Ryan
Rodney9
January 28th, 2010, 04:01 AM
I love Fluxbox for its minimalist simplicity.
$ top
top - 12:18:14 up 28 min, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.11, 0.07
Tasks: 128 total, 1 running, 127 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.0%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.4%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 8194608k total, 961476k used, 7233132k free, 124276k buffers
Swap: 6385796k total, 0k used, 6385796k free, 368116k cached
Htop
GeneralSpecific
January 28th, 2010, 04:29 AM
Thank you for your quick response!
Here is my "htop"
As you can see I am striving to run Ubuntu on a low RAM machine - 256MB. I know that new ram is cheap, but it is sort of a personal challenge to see how fast I can get it to run the way it is.
Anyone else? Especially with as few other programs running as possible - so I can get an idea of the minimum memory used running Ubuntu w/ Fluxbox.
Thanks
-Ryan
Rodney9
January 28th, 2010, 04:45 AM
I worked out how to take a section screen shot with scrot, so here is my htop again -
GeneralSpecific
January 28th, 2010, 06:00 AM
Thanks!
WOW...what a contrast:
Memory
48/256
450/8000
Is that a basic Ubuntu install (using fluxbox of course) or do you have a lot of other things running?
It may be hard to compare, when you have a lot more RAM than I do.
I seem to remember reading that the more memory you have available the more memory will be used - Your computer doesn't need to conserve ;)
-Ryan
snek
January 28th, 2010, 03:16 PM
Wouldn't it be better to paste the output of free -m instead of (h)top?
Quite a difference though, curious what other people post..
GeneralSpecific
January 28th, 2010, 04:48 PM
free -m could work fine...
I am a fan of htop, and a little curious about some of the top processes that are taking up memory.
Thanks for the reply, I hope we can get a few more full screen shots of htop.
-Ryan
Rodney9
January 29th, 2010, 12:34 AM
$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 8002 540 7461 0 68 171
-/+ buffers/cache: 301 7701
Swap: 6236 0 6236
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.