Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

TheDary · 2012-12-13 21:53:07

First of all please excuse my bad English.

I have installed archlinux i686 with kernel has by default, but I wonder if there is a kernel that is optimized for PCs with little RAM, I have a single 512MB module.

It means that so far is working bad, I just want to be as optimized as possible.

PD: I am currently testing the Zen kernel

TheDary Arch test

ismaelvc · 2012-12-13 22:08:54

I recommend zramswap from AUR:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/zramswap/

Here is an example of my laptop with 372M RAM I used to had 256M but still zramswap helped a lot!

Every 1,0s: toybox                                                                                   Thu Dec 13 16:02:29 2012


             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           372        364          8          0          9        143
-/+ buffers/cache:        211        161
Swap:         1396          6       1390

Filename                                Type            Size    Used    Priority
/swapfile                               file            1048572 0       -1
/dev/zram0                              partition       381840  6232    100

cpu MHz         : 499.995

S.ficheros     Tamao Usados  Disp Uso% Montado en
rootfs            37G    19G   17G  53% /
dev              185M      0  185M   0% /dev
run              187M   372K  187M   1% /run
/dev/sda1         37G    19G   17G  53% /
tmpfs            187M    68K  187M   1% /dev/shm
tmpfs            187M      0  187M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs            187M    28K  187M   1% /tmp
TEMP              64M      0   64M   0% /home/ismaelvc/TEMP
/dev/fd0         1,4M   399K  1,1M  29% /run/media/ismaelvc/disk
/dev/sdb1        963M   4,0K  963M   1% /run/media/ismaelvc/EMY_USB

acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1:        +50.0C  (crit = +84.0C)

Also, I haven't tryed this:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ke … ny-Patches

but there is also a nice description of available kernels, you culd also complie your own ;)

I see you use compiz! which desktop? or only WM?

teateawhy · 2012-12-14 17:32:31

TheDary wrote:

I just want to be as optimized as possible.

Arch Linux is not really optimized for low ram, but it is definitly possible to do so yourself. Because the optimization is difficult, i recommed you to use a distribution that is already optimized.
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=154430

2ManyDogs · 2012-12-14 20:26:12

You will do much more to optimize performance on that machine by choosing a minimal tiling (or stacking) window manager and using mainly command-line apps than you will ever accomplish with a different kernel. It is entirely possible to run Arch on a system with the specs you have, but you might want to try something other than compiz. I'm not sure how many other apps you had running when you took that scrot, but you should be able to start a minimal window manager in X with less than 100M memory used.

Last edited by 2ManyDogs (2012-12-14 20:27:32)

karol · 2012-12-14 23:46:14

I have 512 MB RAM and apart from bigger games and multimedia-heavy websites I can work and play just fine.
I'm using stock Arch packages, dwm as my WM and dwb as my browser.

Upon boot to the console, my system uses about 25 MB, after starting X, about 40-50 MB.

straykat · 2012-12-15 00:28:09

As 2ManyDogs posted, your desktop/window manager & applications will do more to optimise for an older system.

If you know how to compile the Linux kernel, "make localmodconfig" will give you the .config to get you going to optimising the stock Arch Linux kernel from abs. It will use a little less RAM as well.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ke … raditional
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ke … mmended.29

I have a 1999 Toshiba laptop with a PIII (700MHz) & 512 of DDR333 that will run any desktop including KDE (with desktop indexing turned off). Of course KDE is not fast but is smooth & usable. I had compiled the stock Arch kernel, kdelibs & gtk2

I find though, that XFCE is the most complete desktop versus speed. I compile the kernel & gtk2 for XFCE.

There is though no need to recompiling kernels & libs etc as there is only a small measure of optimisation & shows you have way too much time on your hands

KaiSforza · 2012-12-15 16:26:50

While I have a system with 8G of RAM now, I used to have one with 256M. Choosing the right window manager will make things look and feel much smoother, and also use less memory. Personally, I would recommend i3wm. If you're not comfortable with a tiling wm, then LXDE/XFCE would be my recommendations.

Recompiling a kernel won't get you much of anything in terms of speed. At least not much that is noticable.

TheDary · 2012-12-16 23:28:04

ismaelvc wrote:

I see you use compiz! which desktop? or only WM?

Hello, I use compiz as a standalone window manager and uses about 13% to start, but the problem starts when I'm using applications sometimes freeze.

teateawhy wrote:

Arch Linux is not really optimized for low ram, but it is definitly possible to do so yourself. Because the optimization is difficult, i recommed you to use a distribution that is already optimized.

I just want to use Arch Linux on my PC, I never want to fall into the trap of distro hopping

2ManyDogs wrote:

You will do much more to optimize performance on that machine by choosing a minimal tiling (or stacking) window manager and using mainly command-line apps than you will ever accomplish with a different kernel. It is entirely possible to run Arch on a system with the specs you have, but you might want to try something other than compiz. I'm not sure how many other apps you had running when you took that scrot, but you should be able to start a minimal window manager in X with less than 100M memory used.

I think I was running multiple applications, including chromium.

2ManyDogs wrote:

I have 512 MB RAM and apart from bigger games and multimedia-heavy websites I can work and play just fine.
I'm using stock Arch packages, dwm as my WM and dwb as my browser.Upon boot to the console, my system uses about 25 MB, after starting X, about 40-50 MB.

Sounds good.

What I want is that my Arch Linux distribution makes better use of the percentage of RAM it has available.

straykat wrote:

I have a 1999 Toshiba laptop with a PIII (700MHz) & 512 of DDR333 that will run any desktop including KDE (with desktop indexing turned off). Of course KDE is not fast but is smooth & usable. I had compiled the stock Arch kernel, kdelibs & gtk2I find though, that XFCE is the most complete desktop versus speed. I compile the kernel & gtk2 for XFCE.There is though no need to recompiling kernels & libs etc as there is only a small measure of optimisation & shows you have way too much time on your hands lol

Since I do not have the knowledge to compile the kernel, all it would do is leave many options default and compile other things instinctively, then compile my own kernel is not an option for me, just waste my time xD

PS: I tried to compile a kernel, but I lost in the menuconfig o_O

KaiSforza wrote:

While I have a system with 8G of RAM now, I used to have one with 256M. Choosing the right window manager will make things look and feel much smoother, and also use less memory. Personally, I would recommend i3wm. If you're not comfortable with a tiling wm, then LXDE/XFCE would be my recommendations.Recompiling a kernel won't get you much of anything in terms of speed. At least not much that is noticable.

Compiz Standalone is very similar in performance to Openbox.

I think the best option for me based on the responses you would install zramswap but. How do I set it up correctly?

I reiterate, what I want is that my Arch Linux system makes better use of the limited RAM available to it, if it can.

KaiSforza · 2012-12-17 00:13:47

I have no personal experince with compiz, but I can say still that learning to use a tiling wm will save you at least a few percent of ram. Just for the fun of it, I whipped up a kvm with 256M ram and 1G swap space. It ran flawlessly, and rarely went into the swap unless I was running the web browser. Then it'd use ~10-50M of swap which is acceptable for a web browser, in my opinion.

I would recomment checking out extremely lightweight applications. This doesn't mean you have to sacrifice the features of heavier applications like chromium, but it will significantly decrase your memory useage. Since you only mentioned chromium, I will only recommend the browser I use, luakit. It's much lighter weight than chrom{e,ium} or firefox. I'd say try to get as many applications as you can into a terminal, and get away from as many graphical applications as possible. (One of the few you can't help but use in a graphical environment is a web broser most of the time.)

Hope things work out for you.

EDIT: I just pulled up htop and i3 is using 27M on my system with quite a few windows open and 5 workspaces used.
EDIT 2: On the virtual machine at boot, it was using 3M.

Last edited by KaiSforza (2012-12-17 01:02:07)

teateawhy · 2012-12-19 19:17:09

The first app you can exhcange for a more lightweight one is the browser, chromium. Here comes a list of applications you can choose from.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Li … plications
Also look into changing your mail client, rss reader, music player to console applications, because those apps are running most of the time. I suggest mutt, newsbeuter, and cmus.
A survey on the arch forums about lightweight apps:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=111878
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=138281

Last edited by teateawhy (2012-12-19 19:17:34)

Arch Linux

#1 2012-12-13 21:53:07

Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#2 2012-12-13 22:08:54

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#3 2012-12-14 17:32:31

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#4 2012-12-14 20:26:12

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#5 2012-12-14 23:46:14

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#6 2012-12-15 00:28:09

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#7 2012-12-15 16:26:50

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#8 2012-12-16 23:28:04

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#9 2012-12-17 00:13:47

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

#10 2012-12-19 19:17:09

Re: Looking for a kernel for a system with 512MB

Board footer