Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 7 of 7
i wanna make a web/file server on a p2 300 mhz 64 mg ram 4 gig hdd. it will be remotly administrated, no gui just the basics... will 10.1 take ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4

    10.1 on an old box


    i wanna make a web/file server on a p2 300 mhz 64 mg ram 4 gig hdd. it will be remotly administrated, no gui just the basics... will 10.1 take up to much of the system resources?
    the reasont i would prefer it is becuase it supports the ma111 netgear wirless usb addaptor whitch i have a spare of... and ideas?

  2. #2
    Linux User GNU_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada, eh
    Posts
    284

    Mandrake 10.1 on old PC

    I have used Mandrake 10.1, and i believe it would run fine on that machine in console mode. The biggest resource drain on any version of Linux is definatly X. Console mode does still use a surprising amount of RAM due to the fact of multi process/console nature of UNIX/Linux. You can bet every last bit of that 64MB will be used by the O/S!

    I say this because I am running FreeBSD 4.x on a PII with 128MB RAM in console mode, and the system indicated that approx. 64MB was in use including disk cache.

    Of course you could run X if you used a really old/modest window manager...
    PTL x10 Hallelujah!
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 512MB RAM Dual 80G WD HD 8MB Cache (1 WinXP Home, 1 CentOS 4.2) GeForce Ti4200 128MB SB Live! 5.1
    Registered Linux user #391521

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    146
    I had MDK10. running on a PII it running fine with 128meg. I switched computers to a PII at 266MHz and 196meg and that runs fine also with KDE3.2. When I checked my memory usage, on linux it shows most of the available memory taken up by the OS. But Linux isn't like windows: it allocates memory on demand and uses HD swap when too many processes are running. Even with memory hogs like GIMP and OOffice, the computer doesn't lock up or freeze or have latency problems; and never seems to hit swap. As Gnu_man said, use a simple window manager like ICEwm or use console only - though a running computer without a gui is like computing in the 1960s.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #4
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2
    I know this is a mandrke thread, but..
    I had redhat 9 running on a pentium 266 (not a PII, the original pentium) and 64mb ram running apache, samba, vsftpd, and sendmail. I had PHP-nuke(a content managememnt script) on the webserver. I would normaly leave it running without X. if I had to do some local administration I would startx with kde. kde would be kind of slow. The web server ran fine, It wasn't slow at all but it wasn't the quickest. I had made 5 users on at a time, at the most and it did not bog it down. I just switch to mandrake on my desktop , because I hated redhat's package management gui. so I thought I would try mandrake it is so much faster. I now got a PII 333 with 192mb that I am using as my web/file server. I have been having small hardware problems with the mouse and the nic just stop working out of nowhere.

  6. #5
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    239
    dont mean to put you off,

    I tried to install mandrake 10.1 community on a AMD K6-2 500Mhz, with 64mb ram, it would boot from cd, go through the first stage, but crashed before getting into the proper gui part of the installation....at the time I assumed it was because even the installer needed more than 64mb of ram to work..although I dont know thats the case, try it and see!

    I did get slackware to install on it tho. I now have more memory and so will try and install mandrake again, if it works then i guess it would of been the memory, but if it dosnt maybe the mother board is just too old or unsupported.

  7. #6
    Linux User GNU_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada, eh
    Posts
    284
    That sort of situation is something i would only expect to happen under M$ WinDOS 9x
    A linux system should never crash due to lack of memory. It would simply dip into slower virtual memory. Besides, 64MB is plenty ok to boot the system, running a window manager however, is a different story.
    PTL x10 Hallelujah!
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 512MB RAM Dual 80G WD HD 8MB Cache (1 WinXP Home, 1 CentOS 4.2) GeForce Ti4200 128MB SB Live! 5.1
    Registered Linux user #391521

  8. #7
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    239
    Yeah, its more than likely its just a weird hardware issue.

    I will try the 10.1 official cds soon and see how they go.

Posting Permissions

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