From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38364) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJNv-0005UX-E1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:48:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJNn-0001m7-7v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:48:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDJNm-0001ln-VU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:48:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:47:54 +0000 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20130306184753.GZ18317@redhat.com> References: <51358208.1020409@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <20130305060742.GA31560@cs.nctu.edu.tw> <1362542380.7276.9@driftwood> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] default guest RAM size? Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: =?utf-8?B?6Zmz6Z+L5Lu7IChXZWktUmVuIENoZW4p?= , Michael Tokarev , qemu-devel On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 02:34:53AM +0800, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 March 2013 11:59, Rob Landley wrote: > > On 03/05/2013 12:09:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 5 March 2013 14:07, =E9=99=B3=E9=9F=8B=E4=BB=BB (Wei-Ren Chen) > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:40:38PM +0800, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> >> On 5 March 2013 13:26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >> >> > For many years, qemu defaults to 128Mb of guest RAM size. > >> >> > Today, this is just too small, and many OSes fails to boot > >> >> > with this size, more, they fail to produce any reasonable > >> >> > messages either (eg, windows7 just crashes at startup). > >> >> > >> >> If you make the default bigger then some boards will crash > >> >> or behave weirdly because they try to map more RAM in than > >> >> will fit into the space for RAM in their address maps. > >> > > >> > So, 128Mb is still a good default? I am just wondering if those > >> > boards with little memory still are major user of QEMU? :) > >> > >> They may not be major but they're still in the codebase. You > >> can't just arbitrarily break them -- you need to propose > >> a path forward that doesn't do that. > > > > 256 can be handled by most things. >=20 > I'm going to take a wild guess that Windows 7 doesn't do any > better in 256MB than it does with 128 :-) Indeed documented min requirements for Win7 are 2 GB on x86_64. In fact very few modern OS accept anything as low as 256 MB. If you want adefault that is suitable for anything mainstream then we're talking GB's not MB's. Daniel --=20 |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange= / :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.or= g :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr= / :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vn= c :|