Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:12 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 10969 - OmegaWiki should use less memory
OmegaWiki should use less memory
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
WikiLexicalData/OmegaWiki (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://www.omegawiki.org/index.php?ti...
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-08-17 09:54 UTC by Gerard Meijssen
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:05 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Gerard Meijssen 2007-08-17 09:54:56 UTC
Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 83886080 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 6291456 bytes) in /var/www/ow/extensions/Wikidata/OmegaWiki/RecordHelper.php on line 29

Thanks,
    Gerard
Comment 1 Rob Church 2007-08-19 21:13:35 UTC
Not a software issue.
Comment 2 Gerard Meijssen 2007-08-19 21:38:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Not a software issue.
> 

Rob, do you know the OmegaWiki code ? Are you sure it is not a software issue ?
Thanks,
    GerardM
Comment 3 Rob Church 2007-08-19 21:42:10 UTC
You're hitting a memory limit, which means you need to increase this in your PHP configuration. You may be able to introduce some cleverness to try and automatically raise the memory limit, but this isn't necessarily always allowed in code. It's not a direct software issue.

Please don't insult my intelligence again.
Comment 4 Gerard Meijssen 2007-08-19 22:00:13 UTC
This value has been changed several times .. people mumble things like this should be sufficient .. it is not. It needs some proper attention in the light of what the software is to achieve. It needs some proper attention and putting it on this bug list is exactly one of doing this.

Sorry that I have to explain things for you .. if you are interested we have work for you.

Thanks,
    GerardM
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-08-19 22:10:30 UTC
It's a legitimate enhancement request to ask that an extension be more memory-efficient.
Comment 6 Brion Vibber 2007-08-20 13:13:44 UTC
Note that if an 80 MEGABYTE memory limit isn't enough, you've either got bogus data or you're not handling it efficiently. :)

So probably the code needs work, rather than just bumping up the memory limit again.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links