On 03/06/2013 12:34:53 PM, 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 :-)
Who cares? I meant that I got 256 megs in an arm board, 256 megs in a
mips board, 256 megs in a powerpc board, and 256 megs in a sparc board.
KVM is welcome to change its defaults however it likes. This is the
qemu list.
Rob
