On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 10:40:11 Dale wrote: > Mick wrote: > > On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 06:12:40 Dale wrote: > >> Bruce Hill wrote: > >>> If 16GB of RAM wasn't enough, ydiw. I've used that line of 7G forever, > >>> and run app-office/libreoffice, as well as firefox and some other big > >>> app (forget it's name) and _never_ had a problem. > >> > >> Well, a while back, OOo and LOo wanted more than 8Gbs. It wasn't my > >> need but what portage looked for. Then someone did some changes and > >> reduced that need and it worked. From my understanding, there was some > >> code clean up that helped in that. I think it looks for 6Gbs now. From > >> the ebuild: > >> > >> CHECKREQS_MEMORY="512M" > >> CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="6G" > >> > >> It used to be more than that. If it didn't have enough, it stopped. > >> Even when I would override that setting, it would still run out of space > >> more often than not. As a matter of fact, I still have the command in > >> my freq used commands file that I used to fix it: > >> > >> mount -t tmpfs -o size=12g tmpfs /var/tmp/portage > > > > Does it stop dead or does it start to page into swap? > > Actually, portage looks for enough space before even starting and still > does. However, when I force it to ignore it, it stops and says it ran > out of space. I'd just rather it didn't use swap anyway. Either way, > OOo and LOo used to need lots of space. I think there was some code > cleanup and maybe some other changes that reduced that a lot. I think > there was also some gcc changes to but not sure on that. > > I did some more searching after my last post, at one point it looked for > at least 12GBs from what I found. That was the largest setting I found.
Right, so running /var/tmp/portage on a tmpfs definitely won't work on an old box of mine with only a few MB of memory. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
