> Am 30.04.2015 um 11:40 schrieb Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>: > > 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?
Again, even with 512, please verify a few different distros and check that they run. Alex
