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