On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:24 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:32AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 09:03 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:25:53PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:04:31AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > > Do these older/limited machines do anything better now than they did in > > > > > > the 2.4 kernel days? > > > > > > > > > > Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than 512MB these days. > > > > > > > > Don't bother: either > > > > > > > > - Use an existing disk image and upgrade it (works in 128MB) > > > > > > Part of the selinux-policy-targeted upgrade does something whih > > > munches through stupid amounts of memory. On any box I've tried > > > this on with <512MB, the oom killer kicks in, and then I've been > > > left with the mess of a half upgraded box, with lots of rpms > > > listed twice in the rpmdb. > > > > Is this still true? There were several memory optimizations implemented > > in libsemanage and libsepol in time for Fedora 9, so semodule and > > semanage should be much less memory hungry than they were in Fedora 8. > > I'm pretty sure I've still seen this happen on rawhide recently. > I now f8 is definitly still affected, because it blew up last week > even after some of Dan's recent changes that we hoped would lower > mem usage. The most important optimization wouldn't have shown up until libsemanage 2.0.23. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
