| 1 |
On Saturday 19 Nov 2011 17:37:59 Hans Müller wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday, 19. November 2011 20:08:36 Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > On Nov 19, 2011 7:28 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > And, finally, yeah..that isn't just "not much", that's a terribly small |
| 5 |
> > > amount of memory. Assuming you've kept the software current, some of |
| 6 |
> > > your applications have certainly not been maintained with 600MB of |
| 7 |
> > > system memory in mind. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Indeed. With less than 800MB, gcc fails to upgrade. Always. For some |
| 10 |
> > RAM-constrained systems (e.g. the VMs in my company's cloud), I even have |
| 11 |
> > to do an "out-of-the-box" upgrade, i.e., upgrade an identical copy on the |
| 12 |
> > physical data center, grab the binpkg tarball, and upload the tarball to |
| 13 |
> > the cloud. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If you provide enough swap this shouldn't be an issue. |
| 16 |
> I have a box running Xen dom0 with 680MB RAM and 1.5GB swap and it compiles |
| 17 |
> everything fine so far. |
| 18 |
> Of course I didn't emerge firefox, libreoffice or similar packages on this |
| 19 |
> system, but at least for gcc this is fine. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Best regards |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks again for all the advice received. I've added a few swap files to bring |
| 24 |
swap up to 1206984k and libxul.so was finally built and installed without |
| 25 |
bringing the machine to its knees. :-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It seems that with time applications are getting bigger than what they used to |
| 28 |
be. |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Mick |
Archives