Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> writes: >> 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.
Verified the few distro images available in my virt-test setup, we boot fine with 512MB memory. Will send an updated patch. Regards Nikunj
