On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:18:05 +0200 Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > On 30.04.15 06:41, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 29/04/2015 11:06, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > >>>> so David can push both patches. > >>>> > >>>> But isn't 1G a bit too much? At least on x86 you can easily boot with > >>>> 512M. > >>> > >>> I understood this number as not the _minimum memory_ to boot the > >>> VM. And this will only come in picture when the user has not specified > >>> any memory. > >> > >> This in turn will basically only happen for QEMU developers. So keeping > >> the default on the low side would make sense. > >> > >> On my (4G memory) laptop I might not even be able to boot a PPC64 VM > >> with 1G and TCG, but I can do that nicely with 256M. > > > > That will be fine with me as well, i.e. 256M > > > > David/Alex, Do you have comments on this before we change it? > > I've seen RAM size combinations that seemed to work ok, but then failed > during grub2 execution for example. Please verify with all reasonably > realistically executed distributions that 256MB is enough. Since this default value will likely be there for the next couple of years, it's maybe better to use a slightly higher value than one that is too low - the amount of RAM that a guest requires likely rather increases in the next years instead of going down again. So I think using 512 MB instead is maybe a good compromise? Thomas
