Some question's about RAM
Hi everyone, and sorry for my bad English.
In these days I have reflected about a little upgrade for my laptop RAM's, but after reading about (how to do it, RAM specifics, type, etc..) there are again 2 or 3 thing's not very clear in my mind.
My laptop have 2 slots for max 8GB RAM supported (vendor say), actually one is used with a factory 4GB RAM, and the other is free.
1_ I can't install more of 8GB RAM, because others hardware pieces (motherboard, chip's, etc..) don't have much power to support it. It's correct?
2_ I (hope to..) have understand the most important specifics to check before buy: dimensions DIMM/SODIMM, clock frequency (speed) DDR/1/2/3/4, number of Pins and band range. The first three are not possible to change, but for the band range is possible or have sense do it, obliviously to have better performances?? (I know, 2 slots, 2 RAMs with same speed. If not, the much slowly "win".)
3_Is better have in every slot the same component (vendor, series)? Need to buy a couple??
4_After the physically installation of new pieces, need to adjust or set some stuff in the software? If is it, where I can found info/docu about?
5_There are Libre options available?? The laptop isn't young, so I don't wanna spend a lot for the upgrade, but I'm open to considerate any options.
Thanks in advance, and please speak easy :-), my English is poor. Bye
Hey Mr. P
1. About the reasons why a computer has certain RAM limits, you can take a look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_limit.
2. I would buy the two 4GB slots (new).
3. You don't need to have the same vendor on both slots (as far as I know). But in my experience it always brings good results
4. You don't need to do anything (at least on Trisquel) after you change your total amount of RAM. The system will detect it automatically.
5. There are no "libre" options out there. Any firmware found in RAM sticks can be considered circuitry
No need to apologize for your English. The fact that you communicate using a seconds language is very cool.
Hi Beformed! And thanks for your very fast reply.
Seconds language is cool, only if can speak it well.... not my case! :-):-) In fact the link you post, make me in trouble. For what I can understand, suppose for question:
1_ My conclusions are correct, at the end. Is better follow vendor suggestions for max RAM supported.
2_ Ok, but I can install a couple with a band range frequency more fast? Or is not a good idea, for the same conclusions of question 1?
3_ I suppose the same, is better buy a couple, of course new.
4_ I hope that!! :-) Very very good notice.
5_ Well....nothing new. Do you have suggestions about some good, or not to much bad... choise? Vendor or type.
1. I'd ask the same question than Magic Banana. Do you need the extra RAM?
2. There won't be a big difference. If you don't have an SSD, I'd save money for an SSD
3. Same than 2
4. -
5. I usually buy crucial for computers I refurbish (RAM and SSD). But definitely the SSD is a must and I'll spend more money on that than RAM
My primary language is Spanish, so feel free to post in the Spanish forum.
First of all, a question: do you actually need more RAM? If you can use the programs that have your preference and never run short of RAM, there is no need to add RAM: it would make no difference. Well, it would actually make a little difference in performance because:
- accessing data from RAM in both slots is faster (dual-channel);
- the kernel would keep more cache (faster restart of programs);
- some applications managing their own cache (such as the Web browser, I believe) would also keep more cache (faster reaccesses to Web pages).
But none of that makes any significant difference, in my humble opinion. If you do not have an SSD, you had better save the money you want to spend on RAM to later buy a small SSD where to install the system: it makes a significant difference (system and applications starting significantly faster).
I believe the maximum amount of RAM the manufacturer reports is considering all slots. So, if you actually need more RAM, you could only add up to 4 GB. 8 GB are more than enough for common uses of Trisquel, as a desktop. In fact, 4 GB are usually enough, hence my initial question.
Keep the existing RAM, to save money. Brands can be mixed. Nevertheless, as you wrote, you want the same number after "DDR" and the same frequency (spending more on a faster frequency is wasting money: the slower frequency will be used).
As Beformed already explained, nothing has to be done on the software side to start using additional RAM and RAM sticks do not raise freedom issues.
SSD is best for startup times and for accessing data, and will give you that "wow" factor when your LibreOffice or web browser pops on the screen instantly. But more RAM has always made the biggest difference in how I run systems, as it gives the capability to run more processes simultaneously. OP needs to think about priorities - for their workflow, is it more important to be able to run more processes simultaneously, or is it more important to run a smaller number of processes but have them respond more quickly? Ultimately, more RAM plus SSD is always the best solution. Which one is purchased first should depend on workflow. If the OP is compiling a lot of software, SSD won't matter as much, but CPU speed and amount of available RAM will make a very big difference.
I have to agree with Magic Banana. If you don't have an SSD and you have to choose between HDD + 8GB RAM or SSD + 4GB or RAM I'd go for SSD + 4GB or RAM.
An SSD will make your computer feel like a newer computer.
Hi Magic! Thanks for reply.
I'm italian, can understand spanish language face to face, but write in spanish :-o is another story... :-) Any way.
I wanna add more RAM because when use Boxes for example, it work around 80% of usage. I agree. For normal use there isn't really necessary, the delays are not too big. In this moment, watching this forum for reply from Abrowser, use 47% of RAM and 30% of cache. But I use also Tor, with bridges, or GIMP. The 3 points evidenced from Magic, aren't not a bad result I believe. Or I'm wrong, and the differents are not really really much?? For understand: now with 4GB, the time for open a programm or recharge a web page is X, with 8GB is 10% more fast, or 30% more fast??
«.."DDR" and the same frequency (spending more on a faster frequency is wasting money:..» But if buy a new couple with more fast frequency, I waste money because don't use my actual RAM (and spend the double), or because nothing really change in the real speed use??
Sorry if I repeat someones questions, but wanna stay sure to understand all correctly.
But at the end, is always better a SSD menory in front a RAM. Well! I don't know nothing about SSD :-):-):-) So, I go to study and come back in next days, with a lot of others questions. Stay ready! ;-):-) and thanks a lot gnUsers
Cache only speeds accesses to things you recently accessed. SSD is for permanent storage. It is a disk. But a disk that is about three times faster than an HDD (mechanical disks). Including for first accesses (such as during system init). That makes a noticeable difference.
As for frequencies, isn't your current stick supporting the fastest frequency your motherboard supports? If not, you could indeed gain something by substituting it with another one running at a faster frequency.
If you want to post what computer model you want to upgrade ram in it's easier to give a good answer.
If you can find your computer models manual, or motherboards manual you will likely find information about RAM supported there and specifications.
It's sometimes possible to use RAMsticks with higher clock frequency for example than listed in the specs and that is considered overclocking and can be unstable or not work at all.
If specs says it support max 8GB it's likely limited to that for many different reasons, I would not try to go higher. It will not work.
Some vendors have lists of verified to work RAM sticks for that specific model or motherboard. Search for Memory QVL in the manual or separate document with Memory QVL for your computer.
Following that list is the safest way to upgrade ram without problems.
Hi guys!
After a little research about SSD, I'm back.
I post screenshots of my hardware components, and this link < https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=rCrf7QY6gjY >, if some ones wanna see the chassis. If need some thing else, tell me, no problem.
Maximum frequency supported by motherboard, is the same of the RAM installed now, if I look well, so I can only upgrade with other one 4GB RAM with same specifics. This is one way.
But for really improve my laptop performance, is better save money, and follow the second road. SSD avenue :-):-)
I can install (maybe not tomorrow...) a SSD behind my HDD, and remove the RAM, and run 3 times more fast. Really Cool!
About that, is better in mine case (always to have the best possible from that machine) install a "small" SSD (64/128GB), or the maximum size supported (500GB)? Or don't do difference?
I have read about problems of storage for SSD, losing data if are not always connected to A/C power. :-o I'm very confused... My laptop isn't always connected. Using a SSD like a RAM (randomized memory & bla bla bla...) is not a problem, but 64/128/or more GB of RAM, don't need me. I don't wanna conquest the world!! :-):-):-)
Any way, a part of SSD is used from filesystem, and the other free space I can use for what, if really erase data??
Thete is a way to partition SSD, or some ones other trick, to leave on safe my data?
I can install (maybe not tomorrow...) a SSD behind my HDD, and remove the RAM, and run 3 times more fast.
You have not understood. Accessing the RAM is ~50 times faster than accessing a SSD, which is ~3 times faster than a HDD. The price per GB goes the other way around. RAM is volatile: when you switch your computer off, everything in RAM is lost. That is why you need a disk (SSD or HDD) to store the system and the data. But you need RAM too! Enough to run the programs you like and the data they process, after all that is read from the disk.
With an SSD, your system reads/writes data faster on disk. That includes reading the programs you execute: they start faster. The operating system on SSD boots noticeably faster, in particular. SSD or not, your processor, RAM, ... will stay the same. The SSD only makes a difference when it comes to reading and writing permanently-stored data. But that is a significant difference, whereas there is little to gain with more RAM, if you already have enough.
About that, is better in mine case (always to have the best possible from that machine) install a "small" SSD (64/128GB), or the maximum size supported (500GB)?
You can dedicate a "small" SSD to the system. And to a swap partition, for a more responsive system if you run out of RAM (but that is temporary: in such a rare situation, you want to save your work and close applications). There will remain space for a small partition for frequently-accessed user data. And/or for /tmp.
It is nice to have everything on SSD... but SSD space is expensive.
I have read about problems of storage for SSD, losing data if are not always connected to A/C power.
I have personally never faced such problems, which are visibly extremely rare nowadays. User data should be regularly backed-up, SSD or not.
«You have not understood........ ... But you need RAM too!»
:-):-):-) Magic, you are a Saint!!! :-):-) Well, isn't possible put in the RAM in the trash! :-):-) Excuse my ignorance.
Back serious. Is also not a good idea, have HDD and SSD... is like have 2 differents "speed of works". SSD small or not, always work togheder with HDD, so the laptop can resolve fast this process and slowly this other. And if this 2, are part of the same "work", there aren't vantages (I believe).
Fxxk! I don't wanna leave my old HDD, work again well :-(
I understand correct?
If you want to have a combination of HDD and SSD, you should install your system on your SSD and use HDD for storage. I personally have 256GB SSD and an external HDD if I want to store stuff for later use.
In regards to RAM you can see it this way, RAM is to store the programs that you have open (this is a simplification). But their permanent storage is a SSD or HDD
Speaking about having SSD and HDD together inside the machine (I have one slot free), and I suppose, is not the better choise. HDD speed, maybe can do lost the SSD speed vantageses, if work together "at the same processes". Sorry, I can't explain it in better way... :-)
On plus, I have also an external 2TB HHD... Yes, maybe can convert this internal HDD, in another one external 500GB HDD. I don't know....
To better understand.... :-)
Ok, if I use boxes running Trisquel Mini, RAM work +or- at 80%, in this case SSD will do a big difference. But when use Tor for web surfing, stay always on 60/65%, and when watch videos go up to 10/15%. Or when watch HD movies, on TV screen, the fan run much and RAM too. In that other cases, having more RAM don't help for stay much low in % of usage??? If is it, how many in %??
Excuse my low experience, :-) and thanks to all for support!
It is faster to read or write data on SSD than on HDD. That is all. It has nothing to do with fans (the CPU and the GPU are mostly responsible for high temperatures) or with RAM.
A low usage of RAM is a waste. Your system does not work better (or worse) with 10% usage than with 80% usage. Out of abnormal conditions (a memory leak, for instance), you should never reach 100% usage though: that would mean swapping, i.e., using the disk, which is much slower than RAM, as an extension of the main memory.
Accessing data on several disks (whatever their types: HDD, SSD, optical, SD card, etc.) is more efficient, compared to accessing all the data on one single disk: the disks work in parallel. If you have a free slot in your computer, add the small SSD (with a partition for / and maybe other partitions, as I explained) and keep the HDD (for /home). To do so in Trisquel's installer, choose the "Something else" type of installation.
Am I misinterpreting your words or does this mean that there generally isn't much gain in using an SSD for e.g. /home?
WARNING: the following reasoning is just that: a reasoning. I made no measurement I have never used any system with /home on SSD. I may be wrong. Those here who have /home on SSD could make more useful testimonies.
Backups apart, I believe that, in quantity (bytes), I mostly access data out of /home. To load programs/libraries, that get their resources from /usr/share, that read/write temporary data in /tmp, that write logs in /var/log, etc.
Nevertheless, the amount of data in my /home is ~28 times larger than out of it. Mostly because of a media collection I essentially never access. Moreover, only the very beginning of music/video files need to be loaded to start playing. Also, a slideshow loads the next picture while displaying the previous one. When those files are downloaded from the Internet (most are), the connection is the bottleneck, not the drive. And there are the files I work with. Most of them are small. At most a few MB for PDFs I read or create. For remote teaching, I now make videos too. But there is no problem recording them live on HDD. Transcoding takes time, but the CPU is the bottleneck, not the drive. There are the backups too. This time, the drive receiving the backup is the bottleneck, not the drive that is backed up. Restoring is rare.
In conclusion, I would need a large (hence expensive) SSD to store my /home (currently on HDD), but I believe the measurable gain would mostly come from smaller access times, not from a higher read/write throughput. It would be small.
I believe most users are in my situation. But there are certainly use cases where having user data on SSD makes a more noticeable difference. Off the top of my head, I guess photographs can spend hours editing hundreds of pictures and want them on SSD. However, even in that case, I imagine the photograph could save the pictures to edit in a directory on a dedicated data partition of the small SSD (next to the system), edit them and, once the work is over, move the directory to an HDD (to make space for the next batch of pictures to edit).
This is the link about SSD storage problems: < https://www.tomshw.it/hardware/gli-ssd-possono-iniziare-a-perdere-dati-dopo-7-giorni-senza-alimentazione/ >
Is in italian, but maybe can see some ones key-word, to find some thing about in your languages.
Well, I have learn a lot about RAM, thanks very much Magic! ;-)
I hope to having fund a better way to repose my question about SSD+HDD.
Ok, SSD is 3 times faster than HDD, for that is good for storage file system, personal programs add, and similar.
HDD is good to storage my personal docs, movies, songs,... all the others stuffs.
And if I use 2 disks for "do the same work", that work is finish in less time. Is the same with the people, I can understand it easily! :-):-)
The question is that. For instance, when I watch a movie (in HDD) using VLC (in SSD), can't really run 3 times more fasted than now, I suppose. Maybe 1,5 more now, or some thing like this, SSD is fast but HDD is slow. For that I have say «SSD and HDD together inside the machine, I suppose is not the better choice. HDD speed, maybe can do lost the SSD speed vantages». Buy a speedy hardware, whitout can use it at 100% for all you do, is not a best choice. Yes is always better than before, and much better than add 4 more GB at RAM, if RAM don't need it. I agree, and now understand also why is it :-), but can't have the maximum performance from SSD. Always, IF my supposition are correct...
What you say? Don't warry, shoot whitout fear. I'm a rock!!! :-):-)
And also about the link? No ones have watch it? Maybe autor was drunked, or else... :-), but is a recent post
And if I use 2 disks for "do the same work", that work is finish in less time.
Not the same work but parallel works: writing, at the same time, two files on two disks takes less time than writing the same two files on only one of the two disks.
For instance, when I watch a movie (in HDD) using VLC (in SSD), can't really run 3 times more fasted than now, I suppose.
VLC will start faster, because it will take less time to load VLC from the SSD than it currently takes from the HDD. That is all. Only the very beginning of the movie needs to be read for VLC to start playing it. Once done, the type of disk makes no practical difference: even on HDD, reading one second of movie on the disk takes much less than a second. At least for 1080p movies (I never play 4K movies). You can play it at double speed if you wish.
Buy a speedy hardware, whitout can use it at 100% for all you do, is not a best choice.
Not "for all you do" but "for the most demanding task you do". A system spends the vast majority of its time using little CPU resources, RAM resources, network bandwidth, etc. I actually have 16 GB of RAM: not because I always need them but because I sometimes need them, to test my data-mining prototypes.
And also about the link?
Losing data after letting the SSD without power for one week is not normal. If that was common, you would hear many people complaining about data losses. You do not because more realistic time delays to start losing data by lack of power are measured in years:
At 40°C active and 30°C power off temperature, a client SSD is set to retain data for 52 weeks i.e. one year. (...) Remember that the figures presented here are for a drive that has already passed its endurance rating, so for new drives the data retention is considerably higher, typically over ten years for MLC NAND based SSDs. If you buy a drive today and stash it away, the drive itself will become totally obsolete quicker than it will lose its data.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data-retention
«Not the same work but parallel works:..» Yes, I want say that, (bad English...).
«Only the very beginning of... Once done, the type of disk makes no practical difference..». Ok. I suppose :-).., because the rest of job is does from RAM e processor.
Believe the «double speed» is an VLC options, but I never try to use.
About speedy hardware. Usually a "normal" user, use file systems (in SSD) for 70/80% of our working time on PC, and only for 20/30% of time use "others stuffs" (in HDD). So can use SSD at best performances for the almost of usage time (70/80%), is not the maximum but very much too. For that is a good choice.
«you would hear many people complaining about data losses.» Yes, I believe the same and agree with all your reasons, but don't have much knowhow to understanding the article to my self. The author spoke also of crazy temperatures, when is active the temperature is much low that is inactive!?!? Maybe if you work in South Pole and use PC only outdoor.... But him also sad don't leave SSD on a car in a summer day, because can cooking the disk and lost files. :-o !
These are more different situations. The first don't worry me :-), but second it's a more possible scenario. Here, if leave an egg 2/3h in the car on a summer sunny day, is cooked when you come back! Is not usually, but can happen to need leaving laptop in a car.
More RAM will allow you to run more and bigger virtual machines with Boxes. An SSD will allow those virtual machines to run faster with Boxes. So, your priorities should be, A) do I have enough RAM to run the virtual machines? If no, then get more RAM. If yes, then B) can I run them faster? Then save your money until you can get an SSD. And remember, your SSD needs to be big enough to hold your OS AND your virtual machines in order for you to see a speed increase when you are using Boxes. So, buying the smallest SSD which has room for your OS but not for your virtual machines won't actually help you much. On my older computers, I buy the maximum RAM and then I buy 250GB SSD drives for about $30 US dollars that give enough room for a GNU/Linux OS plus space for 3 or 4 virtual machines. This gives me a basic working computer where I have enough RAM to compile software, and enough RAM and SSD space to try the new software on 3 or 4 different virtual machines. For example, this morning I built a kernel for a Debian-based distro, for both Debian Buster and Debian Stretch versions. Then I tested it on 3 different virtual machines to see if it worked on 3 different versions of the distro. Sometimes when I build software I need to build it for both amd64 and for i386 systems, and then I need to test it on virtual machines that are running amd64 and i386 versions of the distro. For each of these processes, having enough RAM is the first priority, and then having a large enough SSD to run the OS and the virtual machines faster is the second priority.
I don't use my machine for very "heavy works" like you do, but some times, I make it "under pressure".
I have used Boxes and VM or VLC and movies, like instances for better understand the reasoning of "how a PC work". [Thanks to help Magic and other's GnUsers, that try to do this bigger work!!! I'm a bad student... :-):-)] And also for give you some types of data, like % of usage in this or there situations, to make me better understand useing certain data.
However instances has work fine, I have more clear idea about this stuff, and can now take the best choice for mine case. Or I hope to do it... :-)
About "cooking SSD like an egg", no ones have tried???
Hi to all, and happy Gnu year!! I hope you have do happy holidays.
To came back in arguments (and may be close the topic..), I have searching on web compatible RAM and SSD, to better understand model/spec/etc... And I believe vendor specifics papers, say bullshit!!
If I want upgrade my RAM, vendor say, need to buy a piece like this: < https://www.ebay.it/itm/Per-Crucial-4GB-2GB-DDR3-PC3-8500S-1066MHz-1-5v-204Pin-SO-DIMM-Notebook-RAM-IT/183852838819?hash=item2ace7bafa3%3Ag%3AcScAAOSwYSFfNTVr&LH_ItemCondit... > But vendor papers say 240pin, and I have find only PC3-8500 SO-DIMM with 204pin [for instance: < https://www.ebay.it/itm/4GB-SODIMM-Acer-Aspire-5741-334G50Mn-5741G-5741Z-5742-PC3-8500_Ram_Memory/221924214850?hash=item33abb6c842:g:QRgAAOSwl9BWLtfg >]. And for what I have see, only desktop version RAM have 240pin.
I'm little bit confused... :-{ Maybe it's only an "error" ;-) in vendor spec. papers, just to confuse ignorant peoples like me.
So, I have decide to open the laptop, and surprise!! Like you can see, my RAM is an Hynix PC3L-12800S!! :-O ????
Exactly like this: < https://www.amazon.com/Hynix-HMT451S6AFR8A-PB-PC3-12800-DDR3-1600MHz-Unbuffered/dp/B00FKEZ218/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=Hynix+4GB+1Rx8+PC3L-12800S-11-12-B2&qid=160969334... > Well....
Maybe is just a trick, to force people to spend more for replace it (12800 is more expensive than 8500), and without a reason because motherboard support 1066MHz (vendor say). Or vendor papers are totally wrong, just to confuse users/consumers than want "open the box". I don't know. Any way don't want totally open the machine to check all the pieces (not for now or tilt it work...), for that I have post lspci output.
Maybe some ones of you can tell me if there are other errors, or the better way (or command) to check it. :-)
I have also searched motherboard Intel HM77 Express spec., and the results are different from the vendor papers spec., for what I understand....
Yes, I can always add a RAM with same spec. of my actually [like this < https://www.amazon.it/Crucial-CT51264BF160BJ-Memoria-PC3L-12800-204-Pin/dp/B009RBN6I6/ref=sr_1_7?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=Hynix+4GB+1Rx8... > or < https://www.amazon.it/HMT351S6CFR8C-PB-Modulo-DDR3-1600-SO-DIMM-PC3-12800S/dp/B0099QM9KK/ref=sr_1_39?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=4GB+SODIMM... > ], but wanna try to understand whit which fuxxxng pieces was build my laptop.
P.s.: I have buyed it brand new 6/7 years ago, and specs. papers is an official Acer pdf, stored inside the machine.... :-{ ...to complete the confusion
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| lspci output.odt | 16.3 KB |
You could have used this command to discover what RAM modules you have (Trisquel has lshw installed by default):
$ sudo lshw -short -C memory
Anyway, you have 204-pins SO-DIMM DDR 3 SDRAM: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Laptop_SODIMM_DDR_Memory_Comparison_V2.svg
You can only put that kind of RAM in your laptop. You can choose a module supporting a frequency higher than supported by the motherboard, as the existing module. Nevertheless, the lower frequency is used. As a consequence, it is usually a waste a money.
And I still doubt you actually need more RAM.
Your link clearing and confirm my suspect: vendor papers say bigger bullshit!
Ans that's the output:
:~$ sudo lshw -short -C memory
H/W path Device Class Description
=======================================================
/0/0 memory 128KiB BIOS
/0/4/b memory 32KiB L1 cache
/0/4/c memory 256KiB L2 cache
/0/4/d memory 3MiB L3 cache
/0/a memory 32KiB L1 cache
/0/1a memory 4GiB System Memory
/0/1a/0 memory 4GiB SODIMM DDR3 Synchronous 1600 MH
/0/1a/1 memory DIMMProject-Id-Version: lshwReport-M
/0/1a/2 memory DIMMProject-Id-Version: lshwReport-M
/0/1a/3 memory DIMMProject-Id-Version: lshwReport-M
I totally agree whit your reasoning, for that ask it. If you look my jpeg (at #10), motherboard and RAM MHz have the same frequency, 1066MHz. Not 1600MHz. RAM model (8500) is wrong, 1600MHz is a PC3-12800, maybe also motherboard is wrong.
There is a command to check the real motherboard, and the MHz freq.?
I have also open other 2 machines, to check if write wrong info about products, is a usually tricks. ;-)
Well, no ones of they!! have the RAM wrote in vendor spec. papers, but one more expensive... :-x
Are others 2 Acer's family machines, a Travelmate and an eMachines, than whit my Aspire do BINGO! (3on3) For TM I'm not totally sure, but others 2 are buy original and brand new, without "manipulations".
Hello,
I just installed Trisquel 9 Mate on a pretty old computer (HP Pavilion used as a Vista machine !), I Installed Trisquel on the 120 GB SSD, and was really suprised to have a boot delay of 20 seconds !
I have 6 GB RAM installed in this old HP and I guess the only way to get some better performance could be to assign 2 Gb of RAM to temporary files (in /etc/fstab), I did that with another Linux version and the result was really good, especially when using internet (Firefox or Vivaldi).
If anyonbe have already done that, I would be interested to know what quantity of RAM to be allowed to get Mate faster.
I use GNOME Shell. It essentially never uses /tmp, as far as I can see. It is probably the same for MATE. Anyway, to have /tmp in RAM, you can add a line to /etc/fstab:
$ echo 'tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults,noatime,mode=1777 0 0' | sudo tee -a /etc/fstab
Do not forget the option -a!
We have find another one than wanna go more fast, also than me!! :-):-):-)
Hi Paul!
Excuse my curiosity. If your HP have again installed original factory RAM (and if you want/can/etc...), can you check if the model installed is the same of that write in vendor spec. book??
I could understand if is a problem only mine.... Or only in Acer family.
However, in my case the RAM is only a small part (from 15% to 25%) of the hypothetically budget to spend for running more fast. I believe for that to buy one in every case.
I could prefer having before a confirm of the frequency of my motherboard, any way (in my case) the different price between 8500 and 12800 is more less 10€ (the double...), and without confirm..... You know, is better stay sure, so spending more.
I believe is that the trick. Every one than open a machine look the piece, check the model, and change it whit another one same model.
Hello Mr.P,
In my case, I got this HP PC for nothing as it was for trash !
When I got it, original RAM was 0 GB, removed by owner. The hard disk (160 GB) was OK with Vista installed.
As I had some different RAM in my tool's box, I try to mount them to test it.
I had to try different RAM memory because some of them were not correctly seen by BIOS. Some 2 GB appears as 1 GB !
I upgrated this old PC and changed hardisk for a 120 GB SSD (I didn't get it from trash !!!!) to install Linux.
It's working pretty well with this SSD and 6 GB RAM memory, the bootleneck is the processor : AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual processor 4200 +.
That explain why I try to assign some RAM to temporary files to get some better performances.
(Would you excuse my poor english/american language).
"Using a solid state drive (SSD) can speed up your system by about 200%.
The reason is that a SSD has a reading speed that is higher than a hard disk and it has a average access time of only 0.2ms.
The physical medium used in an SSD can only be written a limited number of times, but modern/decent drives do wear levelling so this is not a concern. "
-https://wiki.debian.org/SSD%20Installation
"Check that your CPU supports hardware virtualization
To run KVM, you need a processor that supports hardware virtualization. Intel and AMD both have developed extensions for their processors, deemed respectively Intel VT-x (code name Vanderpool) and AMD-V (code name Pacifica). To see if your processor supports one of these, you can review the output from this command:
egrep -c '(vmx|svm)' /proc/cpuinfo
If 0 it means that your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualization.
If 1 or more it does - but you still need to make sure that virtualization is enabled in the BIOS."
-https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM/Installation
also appears that perhaps with fstab there's a ramfs as well as the tmpfs or whatever, and the ramfs won't deal with swap but tmpfs option will?
mate in general uses less resources comparing to gnome or kde, but in the past i had gnome-flashback or whatever only using about 200 mB of ram at start. LXDE or window manager approach can make the system even more lightweight.
To Paul:
Don't worry for English, mine is badder than your! :-)
Thanks for reply me about your RAM model. I believe could be interest understand if mount different RAM model (respect what vendor spec book say), on a bran new machine coming out directly from factory, it's They usual approach.
And if some one other wanna add our experiences, is welcome.
Call it Gnu-Linux and not Linux, is better < https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html >.
Sometimes I call Linux the commercials distros like Mint or similar, than don't have no one respect for your freedom, but is not totally correct. Any way, if you use Trisquel, it's absolutely Gnu! ;-)
To Gaseousness:
Hi! Thanks for link. When is possible, I usually use GUI. I'm a desktop user... :-)
If/when I go to replace my HDD, I believe will go to copy all HDD on new SSD whit a GUI tool.
I use Boxes for what I do, don't know KVM, I just read somethings about right now. Need for run a VM inside another VM, if I read well... But I believe don't need me, this is not my job, play only.
I try your command to check if my hardware support accelleration, because if I remamber well, Boxes have a similar option. This is the output:
:~$ egrep -c '(vmx|svm)' /proc/cpuinfo
4
:~$ cat /sys/hypervisor/proprieties/capabilities
cat: /sys/hypervisor/proprieties/capabilities: File or directory not exist
:~$ kvm-ok
INFO: /dev/kvm exists
KVM acceleration can be used
Why now, I can't run or create a vm in Boxes?
I have update the system and now Boxes work again.
I don't know what is happen. Maybe need only to be updating, and the command don't have nothing to do about. Any way it work, that's the most important thing!! :-)
Well guys, I have understood all what I need (for now) about RAM (and also about SSD... :-):-) thanks Magic for patience, your student are lucky!!), so I can consider solved my issues. Thanks to all your for support!