Re: Current 'next' won't build => 'cannot allocate memory'

[Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2483 bytes --]

Hi,

On 25.05.2018 15:13, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
> ...
>> I just looked and waited for what would come out in the end... ;-)
> 
> I think it is working fine now.
> 
> Can you remind me again why we picked 70%? Was there a specific reason? Should
> we go up to 80 or 90%?

7.11.2017 (You):
To not run into memory limits we should detect how much memory the build
host has and set the memory limit to maybe 80% of that.

22.11.2017 (Me):
> Using '9' or '--extreme'-parameter brought no further improvements,
> on the other hand, build time and RAM consumption increased
> strongly. With '-8', minimal RAM consumption was about 680 MiB, using
> '700 Mib' was always safe. So this is the minimum I would recommend.

We set 1024 MB as system requirement and I found that I needed about 700
MB (680 MB) during my first tests.

Right now, 'Devel' is running with the the latest 'squid 4.0.24' patches
and "local xz_memory=$(( HOST_MEM * 9 / 10 ))" => I've set it to 90% -
we'll see how much cores will come into place.

>> ...
>> 
>> Last build went down from ~319 MB
>> (ipfire-2.19.2gb-ext4.i586-full-core121.img.gz) to ~183 MB
>> (ipfire-2.19.2gb-ext4.i586-full-core121.img.xz). Minus -136 MB. Not bad.
> 
> Yes indeed. There is also no serial image any more. That saves extra space :)

I was a bit puzzled as how small the *.img.xz image went. Fascinating.

>> One thing I noticed: building on a 32bit system led to ~553 additional
>> lines in '_build.packages.log', telling me that "xz: Adjusted the number
>> of threads from 8 to 3..." Doesn't hurt me yet. I just noticed.
> 
> Yes that is expected since the systems cannot use too much memory. But we are
> using as many cores as we can which I think is the best.

I'm curious what the 90% might bring.

>> > About the planet post: Has anything changed here? Can we release this?
>> > 
>> >   https://planet.ipfire.org/post/increasing-download-installation-speed-bene
>> > fits-of-a-smaller-iso-image
>> 
>> For me, its ok.
> 
> It needs some values in there because I didn't know how much we would save.
> 
> When should we release this?

WIR. ;-)

Good question. Is it running stable? Will it build on
other/smaller/bigger systems than mine? If we can answer this with a big
"YES", we should be able to release it.

I'll wait until the current building with 90% is finished and report.

But I can't speak for other development machines...

Best,
Matthias