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

Re: MLton on PowerPC: voltaire's Christmas wish?



On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 03:44:12AM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:

> The problem is that debian powerpc autobuilder, voltaire, has 320MB of RAM.
> If you read http://mlton.org/SelfCompiling you will see that a build needs
> 512MB. Swap is no substitute for RAM with this build! A build on one of my
> machines did not terminate after two days with 256MB of RAM, but completed
> in 10 minutes with 1GB. I find it very surprising that voltaire has so
> little memory since I imagine most modern PPCs have much more than this, 
> and RAM is very inexpensive these days.

Well, having more RAM is always nice, but IMHO there's something wrong with
MLton when it needs that much RAM for building. 

buildd=> select distinct ram, count(*) from status group by ram;
 ram  | count |  arch
------+-------+---------
   48 |     1 | m68k
   64 |     6 | arm mipsel m68k mips
   80 |     1 | m68k
   90 |     1 | mips
   96 |     3 | mips m68k
  128 |    11 | arm mips m68k
  132 |     1 | m68k
  136 |     1 | m68k
  144 |     2 | m68k
  256 |     4 | m68k mips s390
  320 |     1 | powerpc
  512 |     6 | amd64 sparc alpha
  768 |     1 | hppa
 1024 |     2 | alpha hppa
 1536 |     1 | amd64
 2048 |     1 | sparc
 4096 |     2 | alpha ia64

As you can see, many buildds are low on RAM. How do you want to solve that?
Of course it would be nice to have 1 G in all buildds, but some are already
maxed out at 128 MB or 256 MB. 

There already were packages that consumed an insane amount of RAM during
build time, but sometimes that could be solved with changing the way of how
those packages are being built (unfortunately the names slipped away from my
mind, currently ;), but maybe it's possible for MLton as well to lower the
RAM requirements, too?
Of course you would need to know where and why the RAM is needed... 

-- 
Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/

Please note that year 2004 is coming to an end and 
the year 2005 is near  -  even in my mail address!



Reply to: