| 1 |
On Saturday, 19. November 2011 20:08:36 Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> > On Nov 19, 2011 7:28 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And, finally, yeah..that isn't just "not much", that's a terribly small |
| 4 |
> > amount of memory. Assuming you've kept the software current, some of your |
| 5 |
> > applications have certainly not been maintained with 600MB of system |
| 6 |
> > memory in mind. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Indeed. With less than 800MB, gcc fails to upgrade. Always. For some |
| 9 |
> RAM-constrained systems (e.g. the VMs in my company's cloud), I even have |
| 10 |
> to do an "out-of-the-box" upgrade, i.e., upgrade an identical copy on the |
| 11 |
> physical data center, grab the binpkg tarball, and upload the tarball to |
| 12 |
> the cloud. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you provide enough swap this shouldn't be an issue. |
| 15 |
I have a box running Xen dom0 with 680MB RAM and 1.5GB swap and it compiles |
| 16 |
everything fine so far. |
| 17 |
Of course I didn't emerge firefox, libreoffice or similar packages on this |
| 18 |
system, but at least for gcc this is fine. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Best regards |
Archives