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.