Hello, hopefully you can help to impart some wisdom on some of us.

I would like to run our Red Hat enterprise server with the graphical desktop to allow for easier support. The admin guy insists doing so will take 40% of the system's resources (CPU & memory) right off the top. That sounds way overstated to me.

Could I get some opinions as to whether or not to use the graphical desktop?

Thanks,

I don't know if it would shave off 40%... Idling, my processor hovers between 5-10% use (keep in mind, it's also running the monitor itself to tell me that). I'm also consuming 14% of my physical RAM (total of 1GB). So I would say it probably wouldn't have the dire consequences the admin is claiming.

However, his reluctance isn't without merit. It's really not necessary for a dedicated server to run a GUI. There's nothing saying you can't, but it does consume resources that could be better used if your server is handling a lot of traffic.

A good compromise between the two of you might be to install a GUI, have the system start into runlevel 3 (i.e. no GUI), and if you need to administer the system, the administrator(s) can choose to start up X windows manually if they feel it would help them finish their tasks easier. Then just shut down X windows when done to release the resources.

The actual percentage would depend on your particular system and the desktop choices you made.
The GUI takes a huge bite out of resources, and there is nothing that can be done from the GUI that cannot be done without it.
Linux can run in text mode with 16MB RAM. KDE will not run on that. 64-128 (+) MB RAM would be more reasonable for KDE.
An option could be to have text mode as the default and "startx" for maintenance it was felt GUI was easier for. There is definately no reason to have the GUI running all the time.
You also introduce another large set of possible vulnerabilities for hackers. You should not run unneeded programs on a server.

Significant bite out of resources yes. Huge bite might be stretching.

Definitely no reason to run a GUI all the time?

Well how 'bout this? An application that monitors and processes realtime incoming and outgoing files 24x7? Sure the application can do it's work without a GUI and be very happy, but what about the first-line support person that may not be a Linux guru? Would it not be more efficient for that person to monitor and control processes from a GUI, especially if the memory/CPU are not being pushed?

Significant bite out of resources yes. Huge bite might be stretching.
For something that is not necessary, it is a huge difference.

but what about the first-line support person that may not be a Linux guru? Would it not be more efficient for that person to monitor and control processes from a GUI,
It would be more efficent for that person to learn the skills needed to do their job. Not blame their tools.

You also introduce another large set of possible vulnerabilities for hackers.
Oops, you didn't address this.


EDIT: I realized I'd better add that you or anyone else is free to run their server anyway they want.
That is not the question asked at the begining of the thread.
Obviously, I think the "admin guy" is correct even though I have no idea if his actual percentage is correct.

KDE might take a large bite from the resources but you can run lighter desktop environments/window managers or even the X default/backup one. Try with Fluxbox or something from the same blackbox forked code and you should have a feature full gui with less overheads. Also maybe try to only use Qt or GTK apps, and not cause both libraries to be loaded.

Seriously, I think it's better not to run a GUI all the time. Except when it is better (see above). Your opinion is noted.