> 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: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 > > 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: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/welcome/Hardware_Overview/ > > 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. Barry > > 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 > https://www.happyassassin.net > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
