Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Server distro, min requirements

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by L815 View Post
    I forgot to ask, what is the lowest amount of ram that any of the 3 choices above would run on?


    I can manage with a few problems here and there if it runs at the lowest amount of ram. If there are others which would run at less than Arch, please say so :]
    Last I knew, Arch needed about 192Mb of RAM; Slackware can run on 64Mb.
    Spiralinear: Humanity & Machines
    RUNNING: Fedora | FreeBSD | Windows 7

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    US
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorivenul View Post
    Last I knew, Arch needed about 192Mb of RAM; Slackware can run on 64Mb.

    Ooooo, will have to play with Slackware this weekend. I'm currently installing the VM version of Ubuntu 8.10 with 120mb ram with no issues so far.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Oz
    Beans
    4,405

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorivenul View Post
    Last I knew, Arch needed about 192Mb of RAM; Slackware can run on 64Mb.
    The following is from the Arch Wiki:

    Memory requirements:

    * CORE : 160 MB RAM x86_64/i686 (all packages selected, with swap partition)
    * FTP : 160 MB RAM x86_64/i686 (all packages selected, with swap partition)

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by handy View Post
    The following is from the Arch Wiki:
    I stand corrected. Still, 160 vs 64 is a fairly large difference, especially on lower end machines.

    Arch, while a great system, would make an fine server, IMO, but the rolling release system and possibilities of difficulties after updates keep me from suggesting it as a server. While it is a very solid system, it is still relatively too unstable to practically use as a server, especially with highly sensitive data or high amounts of traffic.

    Just my two cents.
    Spiralinear: Humanity & Machines
    RUNNING: Fedora | FreeBSD | Windows 7

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Beans
    904

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Debian or Arch for sure. I got Debian running (with FLuxbox too I should add) on 64 MB of RAM and 400 Mhz K6 CPU. NO problems with it. I don't have any doubts that Arch courd run on it too, since I just set up an Arch box on a computer with 128 MB of RAM and a 667 mhz P3. It rivals the speed of a computer with 256 MB RAM and a 1.3 Ghz Celeron (P3 era) (also running Arch with similar software setup). Yeah they're both great distros for old computers. The trick to install Arch on limited RAM systems is tell pacman to keep packages in pacman cache instead of /tmp (I'm talking about during installation, it asks you, just the default is no say yes instead), which resides in the Ramdisk, which is too small to hold the packages. When it stores in pacman cache (which goes into the partition you chose to install it on) then it installs just fine.
    Last edited by doorknob60; February 14th, 2009 at 01:45 AM.
    Arch x86_64 User / Windows 7 x64 Dual Boot | Nvidia Geforce GT 430 | AMD Phenom II X4 925 (2.8 Ghz, Quad Core) | 6 GB DDR2 RAM | 500 GB HD

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Oz
    Beans
    4,405

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorivenul View Post
    I stand corrected. Still, 160 vs 64 is a fairly large difference, especially on lower end machines.
    I agree, or especially in a VM, on a machine running more than one VM.

    {I only checked on the required RAM as I had never seen it written anywhere (or don't remember at least )}

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorivenul View Post
    Arch, while a great system, would make an fine server, IMO, but the rolling release system and possibilities of difficulties after updates keep me from suggesting it as a server. While it is a very solid system, it is still relatively too unstable to practically use as a server, especially with highly sensitive data or high amounts of traffic.

    Just my two cents.
    I agree completely.

    I don't want to do anything to a server except use it, & much as I love my Arch on desktop, I wouldn't ever use it as a server. I think BSD wins hands down (from my limited experience & knowledge).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    US
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Arch I can't get to install packages during base install.
    Ubuntu Server (JeOS) won't boot because of "pae"
    Gonna try Slackware next.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by handy View Post
    I think BSD wins hands down (from my limited experience & knowledge).
    On real hardware, you know this gets my vote.
    Spiralinear: Humanity & Machines
    RUNNING: Fedora | FreeBSD | Windows 7

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Oz
    Beans
    4,405

    Re: Server distro, min requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorivenul View Post
    On real hardware, you know this gets my vote.
    In my office, Arch suits my needs/desires best for a workstation; though OSX suits my wife's needs perfectly on identical hardware, in her office.

    Riders for horses for courses...

    These days we are so fortunate to have so many high quality choices available to us.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •