> On 12. Apr 2021, at 13:12, Peter Jeremy via freebsd-ports > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2021-Apr-11 14:27:27 +0200, Helge Oldach <[email protected]> wrote: >> Peter Jeremy via freebsd-ports wrote on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:52:11 +0200 >> (CEST): >>> Following the SVN to GIT migration, portsnap is now the only practical >>> way to use ports on a low-memory system. I've done some experiments >>> and standard git has a 2GB working set to checkout a ports tree. >> >> However checking out is a one-time action with ports as there is only >> one branch (switching frequently between main and quarterly is probably >> not very sensible on a limited machine). git pull is significantly more >> lightweight, I've just seen some 200M RSS. That should work well even on >> a 512M machine. Probably much better than gitup in constrained memory? > > Except that git will arbitrarily and randomly decide that it needs to > run "gc" -
See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-gc for an explanation of how git decides when to run gc and how you can control it (e.g., by setting gc.auto to 0). -m > which is similarly extravagant in memory usage. Last time > I found one running, it thrashed that poor VM for 3 days. > > Ignoring that, a "git up -ff" on a ports tree peaks with 2×1GB processes, > though it looks like the working set size might only be ~350MB. > > -- > Peter Jeremy _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
