| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 03:39 on Monday 17 January 2011, William |
| 2 |
Kenworthy did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 17:26 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:13 PM, William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| 6 |
wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 14:41 -0800, Grant wrote: |
| 8 |
> ... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > I think that's well worded. He has insufficient memory when emerging. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > If he's really running short of DRAM Then he might also do well to |
| 13 |
> > boot to a console and do his emerges there. No memory given over to |
| 14 |
> > other things like KDE or browsers, etc. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I am a bit surprised though that a -j1 type emerge would be running |
| 17 |
> > out of memory on a 3GB machine. I just finished emerge updates on a |
| 18 |
> > desktop with 4GB and only used 2.5GB which includes KDE, FIrefox and a |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > number of other things: |
| 21 |
> I have a diskless 3GB ram atom system (mythtv frontend) and I have to |
| 22 |
> arrange swap over nbd for gcc and glibc emerges - others just get very |
| 23 |
> slow when getting to limits, or get flaky unless -j1 is used. Havent |
| 24 |
> tried OO on it yet :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'M flabbergasted. 3G is really a gigantic amount of memory and yet the |
| 27 |
machine still runs out of the stuff? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Something is seriously wrong somewhere when code does this. I know memory is |
| 30 |
cheap and all, but still ... that's just excessive |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives