Minimum requirements for Apache

[ChrisRChamberlain]

Hi all

Have an ancient Windows box, 128MB RAM with an Intel Pentium 4 CPU running at 1500MHz.

Can't increase the RAM at a sensible price, it's a Packard Bell, so would like to set it up as an Apache HTTP server.

Is the existing spec above the minimum requirements for Apache and/or MySQL?

TIA

FAQ184-2483 - answering getting answered.​

Chris
PDFcommander.com
motrac.co.uk

 

[RhythmAce]

It would run but Windows uses a tremendous amount of resources. It will run apache and mysql in the shell but will still keep the lion's share of memory for itself. For most small sites you wouldn't notice this but when you couple a machine with limited resources with a cable/adsl connection, visitors would definitely notice these limitations on a media or graphics intensive site. If you won't be using this machine for anything else, you may want to consider installing linux. Linux can boot into two different modes (run levels. One is level 5 which is the workstation which has the desktop or GUI interface. This is good for those who have never heard of linux. ;-) Level 3 is the single user or server mode. It is the text interface and unlike Windows does not reserve memory for anything but what it is running at the moment. But like Windows, it uses virtual memory called /swap. The best thing is that it comes with all the servers you could ever want like web, ftp, mail, telnet/ssh and more. It also comes with php, perl/cgi and data bases like mysql. Did I mention you get all this for free? Most distros come on 5 or more CDs but you can choose which packages to install. There are many distros to choose from, I prefer Fedora or CentOS but there are those who would strongly disagree. It is Capulets like these who make blood in the marketplace. Egads!

 

[ChrisRChamberlain]

RhythmAce

Thanks for your thoughts.

Was going to use this box as a stepping stone towards a built/purchased Windows server, and then retire it to be an FTP server to allow clients additional off-site backup facilities.

Linux could be an option although never had much success in the past with dual booting Windows/Linux so would install Linux only running at level 3.

Which of the two Linux alternatives you suggest requires the least resources?

FAQ184-2483 - answering getting answered.​

Chris
PDFcommander.com
motrac.co.uk

 

[RhythmAce]

Most linux distros are pretty much the same in that they are all based on the same kernel. What makes them different are the packeges they offer but for the most part that is pretty much the same too. I think what you are asking is which type of install (server or workstation)has the least overhead. That would be a server install. When you select this option at the time of installation, the most popular server packages will be installed. Regardless of which install type you choose, you can always add or subtract packages. As for resources, most of the server daemons use very little when they are idle. They will each take what they need to run scripts or whatever they are requested to do but release the memory when they are done. Once you get the hang of linux I think you will love how it is less prone to crashes than Windows and is virtually virus proof. There are security issues as with all public servers but you will find implementing security measures are a lot easier and less expensive with linux.