Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Em 18-08-2013 11:06, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: >> BLFS Trac wrote: >>> #3982: Firefox-23.0.1/Xulrunner-23.0.1 >> >>> * resolution: => fixed >>> Comment: >>> >>> Fixed at revision 11650. >>> >>> Xulrunner, the first I built, needed over 3.3GB of memory, and ld died. >>> Had to increase memory. >> >> Memory or disk space? I wouldn't think anything needs 3.3G RAM to compile. >> >> -- Bruce >> > > Perhaps disk space, but not partition space, I believe. If it was not > this problem, I would have commited much earlier, still on the 17th, > same day of release. > > First, build died repeatedly at the same point (attached, all five VMs > are at this stuck point, now, it was lucky, hope I copied/pasted it > correctly). Then, I follow disk/memory usage, and very rapidly, RAM and > swap were 100% full, and the command taking more meory, called probably > by that python script - or is it called python program? I cannot open > the machine where it occurred to see, other three VMs are building > xulrunner, now. > > A message of ld dead, Error 9, sent me in the internet to errors related > to not enough swap. It was a VM, so, it was easier to increase the RAM > than increase the 1.5GB swap. I increased RAM to 4GB, followed with htop > through ssh in a tablet, and at sometime, it was using 3.3GB of RAM, > swap not used anymore. Left it there, and later, it had finally > completed. With these observations, I called "memory", instead of > talking about RAM or swap. Other reason to increase the RAM, not swap, > is that, obviously, a process taking place in RAM should be faster than > in disk. > > It could be something wrong with that machine (only lfs x86_64 I have). > > Sometime ago (perhaps a couple of years), I followed these mozilla > applications (SeaMonkey included), because one day, what was a > reasonably fast compile/link, suddenly became increasingly very slow, > from one version to the next, and discovered that was at this same point > of the attached command. I think it is were libxul is linked. Some of > the machines started to become unresponsive during that command, so I > increased the 1GB RAM to 1.5GB, long ago, and things got better. One > thing I am sure, each new version of these programs, more memory and > time are needed. In my old days of FORTRAN, when compile and link were > clearly separated, I would be sure, but these days, I am still > struggling to understand these things. > > The VMS running now have 1.5GB of RAM, in this host, and two others, in > another host, only have 1.0GB, running now, too. Since these problems > started, I keep the VMs at the login, no X, and use ssh, to increase > available RAM.
Hmm. I do note that Xulrunner says you need 5G of disk space. I guess I didn't notice the RAM requirement since I have 10G or ram on my development system. There are a few packages in BLFS that are very big: openjdk-buildsize 9.2 GB gcc-buildsize 6.2 GB JS-buildsize 1.2 GB wireshark-buildsize 1.1 GB texlive-buildsize 1.6 GB qt4-buildsize 1.9 GB qt5-buildsize 2.5 GB xulrunner-buildsize 4.9 GB firefox-buildsize 4.9 GB seamonkey-buildsize 1.6 GB AbiWord-buildsize 1.8 GB libreoffice-buildsize 6.1 GB thunderbird-buildsize 3.1 GB inkscape-buildsize 2.0 GB I would want at least 2G of RAM for any of these. It's interesting that seamonkey is so much smaller than ff or tb. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
