On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 10:29 +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 07:47:49PM +0200, Roel Janssen wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 12:39 -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > > > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:09:36AM +0200, Roel Janssen wrote: > > > > Looking at 'guix/scripts/system.scm', it seems that we always > > > > pass > > > > 256M > > > > of memory to the VM. After bumping that to 4096M, I was able > > > > to > > > > produce a docker image. > > > > > > Can you test somes values that are in between? Like, 512M, 1024M, > > > etc, > > > until we know how much is actually required? If 512M is enough, I > > > don't > > > see a problem with increasing the hard-coded value to that. > > > > > > > I monitored the VM's memory usage and it peaked at 1.6G. But after > > testing, it seems 1024 also works. > > > > I tested with 2048 (worked), 1024 (worked), and 512 (didn't work). > > > > > > I'd like to see what we can do here. Assigning too little > > > > memory > > > > leads > > > > to problems generating the container, but assigning too much > > > > memory > > > > wil > > > > l cause problems for computing machines that don't have much > > > > memory > > > > to > > > > spare. > > > > > > > In that case... The attached patch would only increase the size > > when > > generating a Docker container image. Would that be acceptable? > > > > > There are some use cases for this code that we'd like to work on > > > low-resource machines (`guix system vm`), and other use cases > > > (like > > > building Docker images) that shouldn't be expected to work on > > > machines > > > with limited RAM. > > > > > > > Would it be a good idea to make it configurable at run-time? > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. > > > > > > > I think it'd be better to have it somehow dynamically increase, but > > I > > don't see how I could determine the VM size needed for a given > > system > > configuration. So perhaps the attached patch is an acceptable > > compromise. > > > > Kind regards, > > Roel Janssen > > > > Looks good to me! >
Thank you for looking at it! I pushed the proposed patch in ce3d05cc08c01351756ab5d5b7f25cfe0295c230. Kind regards, Roel Janssen