On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 02:34:53AM +0800, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 March 2013 11:59, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > > On 03/05/2013 12:09:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 5 March 2013 14:07, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <che...@iis.sinica.edu.tw> > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:40:38PM +0800, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> >> On 5 March 2013 13:26, Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> 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. > > 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 -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
