[clug] Runlevel 5 vs 3 and startx

Michael James Michael.James at csiro.au
Thu Nov 24 23:35:10 GMT 2005

> On 24/11/05, Michael James <Michael.James at csiro.au> wrote:
> > For a workstation, set the runlevel to 5.  No argument.
> >
> > For a server, I've always set the runlevel to 3, (to save resources)
> >  logged on in plain text, then used startx because I want graphics.
> > (Even if only to have 2 terminals side by side.)

> > Am I just being old-fashioned keeping my servers at runlevel 3?
> > Is there no real resource penalty to having them at 5 all the time?
> > (If it's just a bit of inactive RAM, it'll soon be swapped out.)

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:34 pm, Mr B wrote:
> Out of curiosity, I did some (very rudimentary) tests a while ago were
> I logged on remotely and measured loads on the system in various
> states.  One of the things I noticed was when the system was just
> sitting at the (default) gdm login screen it used almost no  more
> CPU/Memory power than if I was in RL 3.
> It was a different story once X started and a lot of crap started
> chewing resources.  Now if it's something I can do in text mode I just
> Ctrl+Atl+F1 and log in on a text window, but the graphical display is
> there if I need it (seemingly) without the overhead.  Also noticed
> that it unloaded everything when I logged out and went back to the
> login screen.  Was just wondering if there is another reason to not
> leave it on the login screen or if it's just a hangup from the old
> days?

So it IS old-fashioned keeping servers at runlevel 3.

I'll take that suggestion and keep them at 5 from now on.
Using an alt F1 console for text. (if that's what I want)

Thanks for that,

Michael James                         michael.james at csiro.au
System Administrator                    voice:  02 6246 5040
CSIRO Bioinformatics Facility             fax:  02 6246 5166

No matter how much you pay for software,
 you always get less than you hoped.
Unless you pay nothing, then you get more.

More information about the linux mailing list