For discussing Linux compatible (or not) devices

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators


Postby dhester » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:22 pm

Does increasing the size of physical memory have the same impact on performance as it does in windows.

One of my computers has stopped working and I am thinking instead of trying to get it working again to put the components into one of the other computers running linux.

The machine I am thinking of upgrading has 2Gig of memory at present and I have another 2 gig that could go into the machine.

Would this improve the linux performance?
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:19 pm

Postby ajgreeny » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:46 pm

2GB of ram should be more than enough for a 32bit Linux OS, but if it is a 64bit OS it may show some worthwhile improvement in speed with the higher amount, of course.
Xubuntu 12.04 user, and loving it!
LXF regular
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Oxfordshire.

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:54 pm

Depends what you are using it for really, Linux generally uses less resources, and swaps to disk less than Windows anyway.
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
LXF regular
Posts: 3456
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby dhester » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:54 pm

I decided to put the extra memory in the linux machine (32bit Mont 12) as I am going to replace the broken computer with a new motherboard which uses different memory anyway.

From my initial test the extra memory does not seam to make any difference, from my previous experience if this had been a windows machine it would have made a significant difference.

Does this mean Linux is memory efficient?
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:19 pm

Postby lok1950 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:23 pm

Linux does tend to use all resources efficiently not just memory :wink: the main issue with Windows memory usage is that memory that has been released by a process is not always returned to available free memory so memory scrubbing apps running all the time have been the norm.Win7 is much better than previous versions but still not as efficient as the Linux kernel :D

Enjoy the Choice :)
User avatar
LXF regular
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:31 am
Location: Ottawa

Postby Ben » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:00 am

The command 'top' is your friend here. It will show you how the system resources are being used including how much memory is currently free, and how much load is on the processors (and which programs are using them). If you've got plenty of memory free under normal usage, then adding a bit more won't make any difference.

Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:42 am

Postby bobthebob1234 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:58 am

htop is prettier... :)
For certain you have to be lost to find the places that can't be found. Elseways, everyone would know where it was
User avatar
LXF regular
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:38 pm
Location: A hole in a field

Postby nelz » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:40 pm

Maybe, but free is more informative than either as it differentiates between memory used by applications and that used by buffers and caches. It is the latter that improves performance on Linux, whereas filling up all your RAM with the former kills performance.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
Site admin
Posts: 8498
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Return to Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest