starred/ProxmoxVE
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE.git synced 2026-02-05 00:29:55 +03:00
Code Issues 12 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

5GB of RAM is no more enough to build Vaultwarden #44

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-04 16:21:50 +03:00 by OVERLORD · 4 comments
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 16:21:50 +03:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @maciejla on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024).

Originally assigned to: @MickLesk on GitHub.

Please verify that you have read and understood the guidelines.

yes

A clear and concise description of the issue.

Hi, I was just updating Vaultwarden and unfortunately the recommended (and default in vaultwarden.sh) 5120MB of RAM is no longer enough to build it (process gets terminated by OOM killer). I increased it to 6144MB, it compiled just fine with the highest RAM usage being 5.07GB

It would probably make sense to increase the size (both the default while installing, and the one that gets displayed as a recommendation when updating). Something like 5.5G (5632MB) would probably work, but I guess 6G makes more sense from both a readability and future-proofing standpoint

What settings are you currently utilizing?

Advanced Settings

Which Linux distribution are you employing?

Debian 12

If relevant, including screenshots or a code block can be helpful in clarifying the issue.

No response

Please provide detailed steps to reproduce the issue.

No response

Originally created by @maciejla on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024). Originally assigned to: @MickLesk on GitHub. ### Please verify that you have read and understood the guidelines. yes ### A clear and concise description of the issue. Hi, I was just updating Vaultwarden and unfortunately the recommended (and default in `vaultwarden.sh`) 5120MB of RAM is no longer enough to build it (process gets terminated by OOM killer). I increased it to 6144MB, it compiled just fine with the highest RAM usage being 5.07GB It would probably make sense to increase the size (both the default while installing, and the one that gets displayed as a recommendation when updating). Something like 5.5G (5632MB) would probably work, but I guess 6G makes more sense from both a readability and future-proofing standpoint ### What settings are you currently utilizing? Advanced Settings ### Which Linux distribution are you employing? Debian 12 ### If relevant, including screenshots or a code block can be helpful in clarifying the issue. _No response_ ### Please provide detailed steps to reproduce the issue. _No response_
OVERLORD added the bug label 2026-02-04 16:21:50 +03:00
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 16:21:53 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@japlic commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024):

Hey its gonna be a while the owner of proxmox helper scripts passed away

@japlic commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024): Hey its gonna be a while the owner of proxmox helper scripts passed away
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 16:21:56 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@maciejla commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024):

Oh, didn't know about that... My sincere condolences to family, friends and everyone else involved. This issue isn't that important, let's tackle it after you get things sorted out

@maciejla commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024): Oh, didn't know about that... My sincere condolences to family, friends and everyone else involved. This issue isn't that important, let's tackle it after you get things sorted out
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 16:21:59 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024):

Hey its gonna be a while the owner of proxmox helper scripts passed away

Why should it take a while? We fix bugs every day. Even without tteck (RIP), that's what the new “community-scripts” org is for :-)

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024): > Hey its gonna be a while the owner of proxmox helper scripts passed away Why should it take a while? We fix bugs every day. Even without tteck (RIP), that's what the new “community-scripts” org is for :-)
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 16:22:02 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024):

I have included a storage check, which will be correctly integrated for the upcoming LXCs.

We will adjust the Vaultwarden CT afterwards (after it has been noted).

https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/pull/249

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024): I have included a storage check, which will be correctly integrated for the upcoming LXCs. We will adjust the Vaultwarden CT afterwards (after it has been noted). https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/pull/249
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Implemented in VED waiting push to Main
breaking change
bug
bug
bugfix
deferred
delete script
dependencies
enhancement
external
feature
github
help wanted
in project pipeline
invalid
investigation
json
maintenance
needs triage
new script
new script
nice to have
not a script issue
not planned
organization
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
refactor
rename script
security
update script
website
wontdo
🛑 Failure to comply with the guidelines
No Label bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
OVERLORD
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/ProxmoxVE#44
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?