[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Minimum and recommended system requirements for Fedora



On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:38:21PM -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:03 PM, John Reiser <jreiser bitwagon com> wrote:
> > On 03/29/2013, Pete Travis wrote:
> >
> >> I've been trying to figure out the minimum system requirements for Fedora -
> >> basic stuff like CPU, memory, storage - and I don't know where to look.  As I
> >> understand it, anaconda can require more memory than the final running system,
> >> so I thought I'd start here ( I did notice this improved a lot with the last
> >> release, nice work!)
> >>
> >> Anything you can do to answer the question or point me in the right direction,
> >> would be a big help.  I made a half-hearted effort to find a source for it when
> >> preparing the Release Notes for F18, had no success, and so shipped release
> >> notes without the information. I'd rather not do that again, and I'm not
> >> comfortable coming up with the figures independently.
> >
> > Um, you're being more than a little lazy.
> >
> > I hold the modern record (Fedora 17 and later) of successful install in 383MB RAM
> > (using the default Anaconda graphical install of the default graphical desktop)
> > on both i686 and x86_64.  See my post "successful install using 383MB RAM"
> > to this mailing list on 05/15/2012 and the ensuing thread, and a separate
> > thread of 09/29/2012.  On my ancient laptop 383MB is the total RAM,
> > but you can set the limit arbitrarily for any machine by using " mem=NNNm "
> > on the kernel boot command line.
> >
> > Besides, it isn't that hard to try it yourself.  Use a USB2.0 flash memory device,
> > HAVE A SWAP PARTITION, and it will take significantly less than two hours.  And if
> > you install from a Fedora Live media "spin" instead of from DVD, then it takes
> > even less time.
> >
> > --
> >
> 
> Hey John,
> 
> If the only way to come up with the official figures is for me to test
> installations myself, so be it. I have access to enough old hardware
> to come up with reasonable results, and spinning up kickstarted
> installations that would iterate through reducing values of "mem=NNNm"
> would probably give results in short order.
> 
> I do recall reading the postings you mention, but I'm reluctant to
> recommend that kind of deployment to our users. I am making a
> distinction between minimal and recommended requirements, and while
> the former would be relatively easy to figure out, the recommended
> figure is more subjective.
> 
> If I have to come up with the numbers myself, I'll probably skip all
> that and simply recommend, say, a dual core >1GHz CPU with at least
> 1.5GB of ram and 20GB of available disk space; that seems like a
> reasonable baseline.  I don't want to set an expectation of support
> without input from the developers of the product that I'm documenting,
> so I'm writing here for guidance.
> 
> --Pete

There really should be no expectation of official support for Fedora.  While
anyone is free to file bugs and updates are released, there is no SLA for
Fedora.

You get out of Fedora what you put in to it.

Regarding hardware requirements, since installation is I/O bound, more RAM
is better.  If the kernel fails to boot on your system, consider your CPU
unsupported.  The release notes (docs.fedoraproject.org) list minimum RAM
requirements for installation.  These numbers are the outcome of periodic
tests to determine what actually works in most use cases.

For me personally, I would not want to have less than 2G of RAM in a system
that I plan on using.

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell redhat com>
Manager, Installer Engineering Team
Red Hat, Inc. | Westford, MA | EST5EDT


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]