Re: Heads-up / for discussion: dnf not working with 1G of RAM or less

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> On 29 Aug 2022, at 04:25, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey folks! I apologize for the wide distribution, but this seemed like
> a bug it'd be appropriate to get a wide range of input on.
> There's a bug that was proposed as an F37 Beta blocker:
> it's quite an old bug, but up until recently, the summary was
> apparently accurate - dnf would run out of memory with 512M of RAM, but
> was OK with 1G. However, as of quite recently, on F36 at least (not
> sure if anyone's explicitly tested F37), dnf operations are commonly
> failing on VMs/containers with 1G of RAM due to running out of RAM and
> getting OOM-killed.
> There's some discussion in the bug about what might be causing this and
> potential ways to resolve it, and please do dig into/contribute to that
> if you can, but the other question here I guess is: how much do we care
> about this? How bad is it that you can't reliably run dnf operations on
> top of a minimal Fedora environment with 1G of RAM?
> This obviously has some overlap with our stated hardware requirements,
> so here they are for the record:
> that specifies 2GB as the minimum memory for "the default
> installation", by which I think it's referring to a default Workstation
> install, though this should be clarified. But then there's a "Low
> memory installations" boxout, which suggests that "users with less than
> 768MB of system memory may have better results performing a minimal
> install and adding to it afterward", which kinda is recommending that
> people do exactly the thing that doesn't work (do a minimal install
> then use dnf on it), and implying it'll work.

I have seen dnf fail to work on my 2GiB Rpi 4 with f36.
What I did to workaround this was install the kernel on its own,
then dnf update the rest.

So it’s only 1GiB systems that are effected.

I also have a 1GiB digital ocean VM that happens to not see this issue.

I suspect it may be certain packages that make this more likely to fail.


> After some consideration I don't think it makes sense to take this bug
> as an F37 blocker, since it already affects F36, and that's what I'll
> be suggesting at the next blocker review meeting. However, it does seem
> a perfect candidate for prioritized bug status, and I've nominated it
> for that.
> I guess if folks can chime in with thoughts here and/or in the bug
> report, maybe a consensus will emerge on just how big of an issue this
> is (and how likely it is to get fixed). There will presumably be a
> FESCo ticket related to prioritized bug status too.
> Thanks folks!
> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> List Guidelines:
> List Archives:
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
kde mailing list -- kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kde-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
Do not reply to spam, report it:

[Index of Archives]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Mail]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Triage]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux