Dale Worley wrote: > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 11:03 -0500, Paul Mossman wrote: >> I was getting some cryptic UI unit test failures reviewing XX-6996. >> But, moving from a system with 1GB of memory to one with 4GB seems to >> have done the trick. >> >> Are there any 1GB systems out there that are able to run sipXconfig ant >> precommit? > > My laptop has 1Gb and it works fine. It seems unlikely to me that the > amount of physical memory is critical, because sipXconfig doesn't have > timing-dependent tests. (Or does it?) OTOH, you might be running out > of virtual memory, or the JVM might be deciding it doesn't have enough > memory. >
Dale - are you running all tests or just standard test (make check or make precommit?). If you are running just 'make check' you probably never see the errors that Paul is dealing with. There are couple of types of memory that JVM need. And specifying the options for each type is usually JVM vendor dependent (it's an -X option - often different for each JVM vendor). I think that the tendency is that JVMs get progressively smarter on how much memory they use and when and how they allocate it. We have to be careful we do not work against JVMs in that respect. I also think that if unit tests fail because of some changes that increased memory usage it's an interesting data point. Because of this I think it would be tricky to agree on and implement 'minimum memory required' check. If we think that there is some minimum required let's just ask for it (carefully investigating the options before hand) when spinning out JVM that runs the tests. That said I have nothing against someone doing that as long as there is an option to ignore it by specifying something on ant command line. D. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
