tolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: [bitfolk] RAM requirements for CentOS 6.x / Scientific Linux 6.x
install
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:07:18 -0000
--VmyrZ50r30oK77nV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
It appears that recently, CentOS 6.x and Scientific Linux 6.x
installers started to require 512MiB RAM. Our smallest and most
popular VPS plan currently has 480MiB RAM. That means that the
average=B9 BitFolk customer now cannot self-install derivatives of
RHEL 6.x.
This is extremely annoying since I suspect that these distributions
work just the same in 480MiB RAM now as they did a few months ago.
I can't find a simple way to override that check (please let me know
if you know of one), and I'm not quite ready to increase the default
RAM allocation to 512MiB.
In the short term I am tempted to make the installer boot with
512MiB RAM if you have 480MiB. It will then revert to 480MiB upon
normal use.
Any comments?
Cheers,
Andy
=B9 Mode and median. The mean is 641MiB.
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Q. How many mathematicians does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Only one - who gives it to six Californians, thereby reducing the problem
to an earlier joke.
--VmyrZ50r30oK77nV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk8btaUACgkQIJm2TL8VSQvxNACdExoQe4LqarUH5aNEt576O96i
zR8AoKK6kM7hdWvRUllqBO/5wHQ3Seg6
=bwNk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--VmyrZ50r30oK77nV--
From michaeljcorliss@??? Sun Jan 22 08:04:38 2012
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <michaeljcorliss@???>)
id 1RosPl-0008Ll-H1
for users@???; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:04:38 +0000
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so1620261lah.21
for <users@???>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:04:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=AoZOps0mbSPT4krYJKgG/g967AdE4afE5bZUnsu+J6s=;
b=x6K20x0x/3bgPCdYLJfXBFhn+aIdatigiQkNpQzHOUyPADuNnZoU9R7CPOF4bpCjLH
Uv36fXp9UlM+MZSE6DXWsznRr/b96fNSOE5TsYfAP7GOTKmIMXZ6NJkkQncVsmH2I3CQ
izvFCEh9Uulk+MY0EtTr1HLpOyUdQ5QtwFMQU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.114.169 with SMTP id jh9mr1982983lab.20.1327219471206;
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.91.175 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:04:31 -0600
Message-ID: <CACGFHYC0Zh-LdGWxXHJ+UXprLF3OeWoduGwGRr3q0RtgRuwDtw@???>
From: Michael Corliss <michaeljcorliss@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04083a631ec9da04b7195dd1
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
22 Jan 2012 08:04:37 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.215.48
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: michaeljcorliss@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust * [209.85.215.48 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid D
