> On 29 Aug 2022, at 04:25, Adam Williamson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 -- email@example.com
> To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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://email@example.com
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
arm mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com
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://firstname.lastname@example.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue