A virtual private server feels tight on memory, so you reinstall Ubuntu Server 24.04 LTS and face an early choice: the default Ubuntu Server installation or Ubuntu Server (minimized). It is tempting to assume that fewer packages automatically mean faster web requests, shorter database queries, and higher CPU throughput. The difference is more nuanced. A smaller starting package set can reduce disk use and background activity, but it does not, by itself, make the processor or storage device faster.
Bottom line: Choose the minimized installation when you want a lean starting point and are comfortable adding only the tools you need. Choose standard when you want the broader default server toolset. Compare boot time, idle memory, disk footprint, and actual application performance separately rather than collapsing them into a single "faster" label.
Evidence note (October 9, 2026): This article explains a reproducible benchmarking method and the results each metric can establish. It does not present original measured scores from two matched Ubuntu 24.04 installations. No unverified RAM, disk, boot-time, or throughput figures are represented as test findings.
Ubuntu Server's Subiquity installer offers two installation sources: ubuntu-server for standard (the default) and ubuntu-server-minimal for minimized. Canonical documents these source identifiers and advises checking casper/install-sources.yaml on the chosen ISO because installer identifiers can change. See the Canonical Subiquity autoinstall source documentation.
Both are Ubuntu Server 24.04 LTS, not two differently optimized CPU architectures or separate Linux distributions. What primarily changes is the software delivered at installation time. Exactly which packages appear depends on the installation media revision, optional choices, updates, drivers, and subsequently installed applications. Do not assume that a list published for one image build applies unchanged to every 24.04 point-release installer.
The minimized server option should not be confused with minimal Ubuntu cloud images, a separate image family, or with the Ubuntu Desktop minimal-install option. The Ubuntu 24.04 LTS release notes discuss a substantial reduction in the package count and downloadable size of minimal cloud images relative to earlier releases. Those published cloud-image examples are not a controlled standard-versus-minimized live-server ISO benchmark, and their numbers should not be reused as if they were.
| Metric | What minimized might change | What the number actually tells you |
|---|---|---|
| Installed package count | Typically fewer packages before adding your workload | Maintenance footprint, not processing speed |
| Disk space used | Potentially less space consumed by the base system | Available capacity; not disk IOPS or latency |
| Idle memory available | Potential benefit if fewer background services are active | Headroom for the application and filesystem cache |
| Boot and service-readiness time | Could improve if fewer startup jobs are on the critical path | How quickly a server becomes usable after reboot |
| CPU-only benchmark | No intrinsic performance increase from removing unrelated packages | Mostly CPU, kernel, scheduler, power-state, and benchmark conditions |
| Storage I/O benchmark | No guaranteed improvement on the same device and filesystem | Workload-specific bandwidth, IOPS, and latency |
| Application response time | Depends on active processes, available memory, and configuration | What matters to real users under comparable load |
Expected behavior is not a measured result. A minimized machine may consume fewer resources immediately after installation. But once both machines run the same database, container runtime, monitoring agent, and web server, the observed gap may shrink, disappear, or change direction. The only defensible conclusion comes from measuring the target workload.
Build two disposable virtual machines from the same Ubuntu Server 24.04 LTS ISO revision, one standard and one minimized. Assign identical vCPU counts, RAM, virtual disks, filesystems, boot mode, hypervisor settings, network attachment, and storage class. For physical machines, use equivalent hardware and test under similar thermal and power conditions. Keep the machines off production traffic.
On both systems, apply the same security updates and reboot. Record cat /etc/os-release, uname -r, and lscpu, plus the installer image version and test date. Ubuntu Server 24.04 normally uses the general-availability kernel track but can optionally use Hardware Enablement kernels; different kernel tracks would compromise an installation-type-only comparison. The Ubuntu kernel documentation on GA and HWE kernels explain this distinction.
Collect two sets of measurements:
Use at least several runs per test, preferably five or more after a warm-up, and compare medians as well as variability. Reboot and measure boot time across multiple boots. Never compare a cold-boot result on one system to an already-warm result on the other.
Package count and storage use are usually the most straightforward characteristics to inspect. On each VM, run:
dpkg-query -W -f='${binary:Package}\n' | wc -l
df -h /
lsblk -fRecord the count, the used space on the root filesystem, and the filesystem layout. Ensure the root partitions have comparable sizes; otherwise, an apparent difference may come from partitioning. Disk usage also includes logs, package caches, and filesystem metadata, so identical installation times and comparable update histories matter.
After both systems have been idle for a consistent settling period, run:
free -h
systemctl --type=service --state=running --no-pagerLook at the available column in free as well as used. Linux uses otherwise idle memory for cache, which can be reclaimed when applications need it. A smaller value in the free column does not automatically indicate a problem. Check whether the additional memory use belongs to services you actually plan to keep.
For each boot, use the systemd tools supplied with the distribution:
systemd-analyze time
systemd-analyze blame
systemd-analyze critical-chainsystemd-analyze time reports boot-stage timing, but it does not necessarily mean the application is ready to accept requests. The blame list can also mislead because units may initialize in parallel and some service types are not measured the same way. Investigate the critical chain, then separately check the exact service endpoint you care about. These limitations are documented in the Ubuntu 24.04 systemd-analyze manual.
For instance, if a server runs an HTTP API, measure time from reboot until the API health endpoint succeeds. If a host runs a database, check that a query succeeds. That readiness measurement is more actionable than the operating system reaching a boot target.
For a simple CPU comparison, install an identical version of sysbench on each disposable VM after recording the fresh-install footprint. Then run the same command:
sudo apt update
sudo apt install sysbench
sysbench --threads=1 --time=30 cpu --cpu-max-prime=20000 runCompare events per second and latency across repeated runs. The sysbench project documentation provide the command syntax and built-in CPU test. Use a second run with the same higher thread count only if it fits the assigned CPU count. A reduced package set alone does not justify claiming a CPU speedup; unexpected differences should prompt a check of host CPU contention, clock behavior, kernel version, and background processes.
For an optional storage experiment, install fio on both test machines and create identical test files on a disposable filesystem with ample free space. The following commands create a 256 MiB file under the current user's home directory, then run a bounded random-read workload against that file:
sudo apt install fio
dd if=/dev/urandom of="$HOME/fio-sample.bin" bs=1M count=256 status=progress
fio --name=randread --filename="$HOME/fio-sample.bin" --rw=randread --bs=4k --size=256M --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=16 --direct=1 --runtime=30 --time_based --group_reportingRun both machines with identical disks and I/O parameters. A 256 MiB file may be too small to model your database or storage device accurately; enlarge the file and vary the workload only when sufficient scratch space and a safe test environment are available. Record IOPS, bandwidth, and latency distribution, not just the biggest bandwidth figure. The Ubuntu 24.04 fio manual explain workload parameters. Never point write tests at a raw block device containing useful data.
Install precisely the same application stack on both machines, including web or database versions, connection limits, logging, TLS, caching, and monitoring. Send an equivalent request mix from a separate load generator, with the same concurrency and test duration. Measure throughput, median and 95th-percentile response latency, error rate, CPU utilization, memory pressure, and swapping. Use the same dataset and make sure neither machine shares a noisy storage backend without accounting for contention.
For a small API server, a difference in idle memory matters if one configuration starts swapping during load. For a CPU-bound worker with plenty of spare RAM, the identical application binary may deliver essentially similar throughput. Neither outcome can be asserted before testing.
If the measured advantage is only a tiny amount of idle disk space but your operational workflow repeatedly needs missing administration utilities, the standard install can be the more productive choice. If your servers are automatically provisioned and run a tightly defined service, a minimized base often makes package selection easier to audit.
Usually not solely to chase benchmark numbers. For a working standard installation, first inspect its actual active services and measure the application. Removing unrelated packages may not improve an already healthy workload, and careless package removal can break networking, recovery, logging, or remote management. Canonical's Ubuntu security guidance on unnecessary packages recommend choosing an appropriately minimal starting installation instead of indiscriminately removing default packages.
If a rebuild is worthwhile, back up data and configuration, verify a restore, install the minimized option on a new instance, and explicitly provision the necessary packages. Validate SSH access, updates, time synchronization, backups, monitoring, firewall policy, and application health before moving traffic. If an administrator regularly relies on bundled diagnostics or varied roles, the standard installation may be preferable even if its fresh-install footprint is larger.
Security is related but separate: fewer packages may reduce how much software you need to maintain, but this is not proof of a particular CVE reduction. Both installation types still require security updates and service hardening.
Practical conclusion: Minimized is usually the better starting footprint for narrowly scoped, automated servers; standard offers a fuller default toolset. Neither option is universally faster. On Ubuntu Server 24.04 LTS, the most useful benchmark is the one that measures your service under the workload it must actually handle.
Compare Ubuntu Server 24.04 minimized and standard installs across RAM, disk space, boot time, CPU, and real workloads—without misleading benchmark claims.
A practical 2026 guide to AI, smart-home sensors, remote monitoring, fall safety, privacy, and how technology can support aging in place without replacing care.
Learn how cities can turn mobility, land-use, climate, and community data into safer, greener, more walkable neighborhoods without putting technology before people.
Compare leading UAV and aerospace engineering programs for drones, autonomy, controls, UAS operations, and graduate research, with verified 2026 updates.
A practical guide to AI-powered surgical robotics: current capabilities, levels of autonomy, precision benefits, limits, regulation, and evaluation criteria.
CCUS investment is rising, but can carbon capture reverse global emissions? See where it works, what limits scale, and what evidence matters.
Compare seven global programs for digital supply chains, logistics, analytics, global trade, and operations, with practical guidance on choosing the right fit.
Learn how brain-computer interfaces decode neural signals to restore communication and movement, what recent studies achieved, and what still limits BCI use.
See how commercial drones combine sensors, edge AI, batteries, communications, and flight-control software—and where autonomy still depends on mission and regulation.
Compare seven strong battery and energy storage master's options by materials, systems, research, industry exposure, flexibility, language, and cost trade-offs.
