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 :-) -- PMM
