| 1 |
On 21 Apr 2010, at 08:28, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 2 |
>> ... Does the system have sufficient swap? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> swap should be OK: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> # free -m |
| 7 |
> total used free shared buffers |
| 8 |
> cached |
| 9 |
> Mem: 501 484 17 0 16 |
| 10 |
> 241 |
| 11 |
> -/+ buffers/cache: 226 275 |
| 12 |
> Swap: 494 288 205 |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> OK, a bit more RAM wouldn't hurt here. |
| 15 |
> But I am compiling stuff right now. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I would add more. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Services mysteriously dying, surely that could be because the kernel |
| 20 |
is killing them off due to an out-of-memory condition? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Maybe you have changed to a different compiler version in the past, |
| 23 |
and this creates larger binaries? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That seems a bit tenuous, I don't know, but you can use a swapfile on |
| 26 |
Linux (i.e. you can add to the current swap without having to create |
| 27 |
an additional partition), and I doubt if it is hard to set up. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> ad updates: |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> I was rather defensive there, I have to admit .. |
| 32 |
> Just like "never touch a running system" ... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I seem to get into more trouble when I'm cautious with updates than I |
| 35 |
do when I just let 'em rip as often as possible. More frequent updates |
| 36 |
means fewer updates. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Stroller. |
Archives