You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As was pointed out multipletimes before, compiling HPX has quite large memory requirements. Since improving these does not seem to be a priority at the moment, it is best to document them well.
Currently, the documentation has the following to say on the matter :
It is advisable that approximately 2 GB of memory per parallel process is available.
I can attest that this is quite accurate for the "make all" target, either in debug or release mode. However, today, when attempting a "make tests" on a debug build, I reached an new record 3 GB per parallel process. Unsurprisingly, the build crashed.
I think the documentation could warn about this better, but I am not sure how. Maybe the requirement should be turned into a lower bound, rather than an absolute number, i.e.
-approximately 2 GB of memory per parallel process+at least 2 GB of memory per parallel process
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Here's a PR for my proposal above. Again, if someone has a better idea of how to express that requirements can vary a lot depending on what is being built, I'm all ears.
As was pointed out multiple times before, compiling HPX has quite large memory requirements. Since improving these does not seem to be a priority at the moment, it is best to document them well.
Currently, the documentation has the following to say on the matter :
I can attest that this is quite accurate for the "make all" target, either in debug or release mode. However, today, when attempting a "make tests" on a debug build, I reached an new record 3 GB per parallel process. Unsurprisingly, the build crashed.
I think the documentation could warn about this better, but I am not sure how. Maybe the requirement should be turned into a lower bound, rather than an absolute number, i.e.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: