Rawhide yum-update eats ~1.2GB of memory.
gilboad at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 15:42:45 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 09:46 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:36 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 08:34 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 11:00 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > B9 updated to latest running on a VMWare virtual machine with 1GB RAM +
> > > > 512MB swap.
> > > > Running yum update dies on
> > > > Updating: glib2 ...
> > > > error: Couldn't fork %post: Cannot allocate memory.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay so for x86_64 rawhide yum is going to use about 450-500MB of memory
> > > for the package lists and depsolving.
> > Eeeek.
> > Are you expecting the same memory consumption under F9-release?
> For the same set of packages, etc on a 32bit box the memory size is
Oh, that's far better.
> It's due to how python does 64bit objects in memory - they explode about
> 2-3x the size.
> James Antill has done some marvelous work reducing the overall memory
> footprint of yum, but it's not going to overcome the 64bit issue above.
> Unless there is a compelling reason like you're using > 4GB of ram, you
> should think about running i686 not x86_64.
Yeah, you're right. I use 64bit on the guests just for the sake of
Guess I'll have to double the memory on 64bit guests.
P.S. I'd update the release notes about it:
(Read: Use 32bit if you have less then 2GB of memory)
> > > However, where you're seeing
> > > things run out of memory is where rpmlib is running the transaction.
> > If
> > > you file this as a bug, file it against rpm since that's where the
> > > memory use is increasing so much.
> > Done. 
> Thank you.
I've retained the current snapshot (packages in cache; yum update
aborted) let me know if there's something that you want me to run before
I finish the update process manually. (rpm -Uvh
More information about the test