hardware requirements wiki

If you have any suggestions or ideas about improving Salix, here's the place to post them.
Adys
Posts: 156
Joined: 3. Apr 2012, 04:17

hardware requirements wiki

Post by Adys » 20. Jun 2012, 14:54

Some information about hardware requirements for Salix is scattered in the forum and the wiki pages.

I'd like to suggest adding a wiki page about hardware requirements.

Such wiki page could be formatted as several tables, taking into account:

_ RAM
_ HDD space for "/" (without “/HOME”)
_ CPU
_ other considerations.

_ respective minimum and recommended requirements

_ version (13.37)
_ DE (Xfce / KDE / LXDE / Ratpoison / Fluxbox / MATE...)
_ x32 / x86_64
_ std / Live ISO

_ requirements for using Salix Live
_ requirements for installing Salix from a standard ISO
_ requirements for installing Salix from a Live ISO
_ requirements for using Salix once installed

TIA.

Shador
Posts: 1295
Joined: 11. Jun 2009, 14:04
Location: Bavaria

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by Shador » 20. Jun 2012, 15:24

Intuitevly my lower recommendation would be:
>1GHz Cpu (Single-/Multi-Core)
512 MB RAM (for 64Bit rather more), better 1024MB
12GB HDD + whatever you need for your data/home

Anything below this is probably hardly useable (but it depends on your use case)
800MHz
256MB RAM
6GB HDD

For Live and KDE one should probably definitely go for 1024MB of RAM. Otherwise I don't think this should differ much. Except the one or other edition might perform slightly better on low-end hardware.

But seriously the only thing that seems somewhat reasonable is a recommendation. It's basically impossible to define a real lower limit. Another issue is that I lack the hardware to test this in a representable manner.
Image

User avatar
JRD
Salix Warrior
Posts: 949
Joined: 7. Jun 2009, 22:52
Location: Lyon, France

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by JRD » 20. Jun 2012, 15:38

512 MB is very limited if you want to run ram-consume applications, that means office suites, recent internet browser, video players, …
For a server, this ram could be lower, depends on your usage.
It is very hard to fix a limit and it depends on usage...maybe a recommendation per usage?
Image

Shador
Posts: 1295
Joined: 11. Jun 2009, 14:04
Location: Bavaria

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by Shador » 20. Jun 2012, 16:02

I wouldn't give a server less than 512MB of RAM. If it is just a small dns/dhcp server for a hand full of people maybe. But as server here probably means soho and such servers usually run dozens of application (samba. http. torrent, download manager. nfs, streaming, backup, ...) even 512MB can be very few. And when we're talking about high-througput file or web server for example ... forget it.
Therefor it makes only sense to give a recommendation meant as orientation for normal desktop use and a absolute minimum to be barely useable except for very special applications. Combined with a notice that the actual requirement depends on the amount of simultaneous applications and users that shpuld be fine. Apart from adding major differences between editions one could also provide some hints regarding the influence of ressource usage of certain applications and use cases. Making separate tables for those doesn't make much sense as you can mix them as you please and e g. server not equals server.
Image

User avatar
gapan
Salix Wizard
Posts: 5528
Joined: 6. Jun 2009, 17:40

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by gapan » 20. Jun 2012, 16:47

Stating hardware requirements makes no sense because everyone is going to use his computer in different ways.
Image
Image

Shador
Posts: 1295
Joined: 11. Jun 2009, 14:04
Location: Bavaria

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by Shador » 20. Jun 2012, 21:36

That's why they should be called hardware recommendations and associated with certain use.
Image

Adys
Posts: 156
Joined: 3. Apr 2012, 04:17

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by Adys » 20. Jun 2012, 22:26

gapan wrote:Stating hardware requirements makes no sense because everyone is going to use his computer in different ways.
Gapan, that's not the point of giving a guidance. Each user has a certain hardware when he (she) decides to check out Salix. Does he have enough basic resources?

Say for example that the user has 1GB of RAM. I'm sure he could use Puppy Slacko, or Slitaz. (But, a new user might possibly not know their hardware requirements before the fact.) Whether he would use them with 1, 2 or 10 different programs running at the same time (and which exact programs), can't be completely covered by one simple table of recommendations / suggestions / guidance. For that, he would actually need to use the OS. And yet, a guidance is not useless.

Then such user decides to try Salix. Maybe Salix KDE would not be the best for such amount of RAM, independently of the programs intended to be running?

That's just one potential example. What about a user with 512MB of RAM? I would think that such user would be interested about minimum and recommended requirements.

My point is that having no guidance at all is like assuming that every user already knows that he can (or can't) run whichever edition of Salix (or any other OS for that matter). For home users with 4GB of RAM, a relatively recent CPU and plenty of HDD space, they might never ask this question. I am completely sure that there are many other users that try to find some kind of guidance about hardware requirements before blindly downloading any OS's ISO, and I would think that a wiki page with relevant tables is an adequate method to share such info (which is currently not presented in any way, except for some very few isolated scattered sentences).

Shador
Posts: 1295
Joined: 11. Jun 2009, 14:04
Location: Bavaria

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by Shador » 20. Jun 2012, 23:56

Adys wrote:Does he have enough basic resources?

Say for example that the user has 1GB of RAM. I'm sure he could use Puppy Slacko, or Slitaz.
Like anything else. We're not talking about real, hard hardware requirementes or comptability. Just recommendation for certain use cases like decent desktop usage. There's no real limit here and it highly depends on how you tweak and use your installation.
Apart from that hardware requirements are not really comparable between distributions or other OSes because everybody assumes different use cases and even if they were using the exactly same ones they would still draw the lines of acceptable or whatever different.
Adys wrote:My point is that having no guidance at all is like assuming that every user already knows that he can (or can't) run whichever edition of Salix (or any other OS for that matter).
Actually there is already some such guidance like that one edition is lightweight and that other one is more greedy on resources. And that's the core of what you need.
Image

User avatar
mimosa
Salix Warrior
Posts: 3096
Joined: 25. May 2010, 17:02
Contact:

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by mimosa » 21. Jun 2012, 06:56

As a user with wimpy hardware who has used even weaker in the past, I'd say if that's what you've got, you know where to look - and Salix is a good candidate. Beyond that, one has to try it out. I'd say in its lightweight versions (even without counting Ratpoison) it's probably about the best distro in these terms that isn't so lightweight it's bare bones (like Puppy or Slitaz). That is, if you can run it at all, you get a lot of bang for your buck. It's Popeye on spinach.

In fact I'd emphasise to the curious that Salix Xfce and even Mate are so efficient in their use of resources that they may be workable options where with another distro you would need to go for a lighter environment. But without putting your toe in the water it's impossible to be sure.

On another point, yes 1GB RAM makes the Live experience much faster and smoother, but 512MB works with judicious use. In that case the difference between CD and USB is quite marked.

Also a good rule of thumb is if Live works at all, a full installation will be an improvement on that performance. But that's obvious really.

Adys
Posts: 156
Joined: 3. Apr 2012, 04:17

Re: hardware requirements wiki

Post by Adys » 21. Jun 2012, 08:21

@Shador, mimosa,

In my previous post I wasn't really "asking". I was trying to put myself in such situation, where a user who doesn't have a previous experience with Salix and doesn't have tons of resources might want to know about this info before downloading any specific ISO. I know I searched (without success) for such info before trying Salix. A user who already tried other distros and also Salix might come to some conclusions.

Of course each user might use the system in very different ways. My point is that some guidance about hardware requirements should be posted anyway, for potential users and even for older users whose usage needs might change in time.

Let me use an - "obviously" - extreme case. A user having 256MB of RAM searches for an adequate distro (for his specific needs, using that specific hardware). Other users, already with some experience with Salix might be able to say whether this new user should even bother (or not) with some edition of Salix. But the answer might be "obvious" only to users that already have such experience. For this potential user, it would be helpful to know about a general guidance of hardware requirements.

Similarly, a user wanting (needing) to run several heavy programs at the same time might not be comfortable with just 1 GB of RAM using Salix KDE (or maybe he will; I'm not asking here in this post, and not answering either). Users already having Salix might know the answer. A new user would need to download and install one edition of Salix just to try it (and after several hours spent in a "low resources" computer, he might need to delete the installation).

Another case. A user wanting to try Salix. He wants to reserve one HDD partition for Salix (or make a virtual disk in a VM), at least for the test with the software already included in the Salix ISO (of a certain edition). He doesn't have previous experience with Salix. It would be helpful to know if 5GB for "/" is enough. Currently, for testing Salix, he can't give much more. He uses the rest of the available space for his current OS and normal usage, and until testing Salix he doesn't want to erase his current OS. For this testing purpose, are 5GB of HDD space for "/" would be enough? (again, I'm not really asking this specific question here in this topic).

If you put yourself in such situations (with no previous experience using Salix), you would understand the need for some guidance (and, yes, probably with some "typical user / usage cases" would be more meaningful).

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

Post Reply