-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/01/2014 02:22 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
On 09/01/2014 07:19 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Bastien Nocera
> <bnocera(a)redhat.com
<mailto:bnocera@redhat.com>> wrote:
> Hey Pete,
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I'm working on the release notes here - should there be any
>> special hardware recommendations for Workstation? The
>> 'requirements[1]'
drafted
>> are deliberately open-ended, because Fedora can be stripped
>> down or built up to run *something* on most any modern
>> machine.
Workstation is
>> a specific thing though, and while LLVMpipe can [often?] get
gnome-shell
>> running, it isn't a great experience. Maybe not the UX context
you want
>> Workstation to be used in.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> Can we split that into a "minimum" and "recommended" variants?
> The minimum would be what's mentioned in "minimum system
configuration" plus the
> mention of "CPU accelerated graphics" and minimum resolution.
> The recommended would be what's currently in "Minimum Hardware
> for
Accelerated Desktops".
> Possibly with 2GB of RAM (so that integrated graphics don't
> impact
us quite as much).
> Does that make sense?
> Cheers -- desktop mailing list desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
> Hey I think 2GB is a good "recommended" value, and that 1GB
> should be the
"minimal". From my tests in VMs, 1GB is barely usable (I assume
that 1GB on actual hardware with non-integrated graphics would be a
bit faster, but still).
> However, "hardware accelerated graphics" shouldn't be in the
> minimal -
people will still run Workstation on VM platforms where it's
unavailable, eg. KVM/spice, we don't want them to think it's
impossible to run our own OS on our own virtualization platform.
> I think it would make more sense for "Hardware accelerated
> graphics"
to be in the recommended section.
> -- -Elad Alfassa.
When I was originally drafting the Hardware Requirements copy, I
tried to stay away from the minimum/recommended distinction. It
isn't easy to draw a line and say "on this side you will have a
great experience, and on this side you will have a merely
functional experience, and across this other line it probably won't
run at all." I think users can generally understand "more is
better", and make an appropriate judgment based on explanation of
the factors involved and available options. Following that line of
thinking, we could say *suggest* at least 2GB of RAM, with a caveat
that less RAM might be a compromise some could find acceptable, and
more RAM would be better.
WRT the actual figure, systems that are preconfigured with 2GB of
RAM are probably going to be mid/high Pentium 4 era systems, or
low/mid range Core2Dou era systems with i915 -ie 4 years or more
out of production. A suggest/recommend of 4GB RAM would put you in
the area of modern low-end systems and older mid/high end systems.
Looking at RAM in isolation, 4GB is probably excessive, but the
class of system that comes with <4GB OOTB may generally not be able
to deliver an "acceptable" experience.
Just food for thought - the stated hardware recommendations for
Workstation can of course be whatever the Workstation group deems
appropriate.
KVM/QXL/Spice is effectively hardware acceleration; I'll elaborate
on that further in the thread.
The other thing to take into consideration is for both the live media
and netinstalls, a lot of the actual installation process is going to
take place inside a ramdisk. I know someone testing Alpha TC4 failed
to install Workstation on a 1GB VM[1]. So that tells me that 1GB is
probably NOT the minimal requirement.
[1]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iEYEARECAAYFAlQFtoAACgkQeiVVYja6o6OsuACgjGZajl9n/lrjOgprRLggw20n
7JUAnRfQW+Y1py1K3p10C/R4ht3mX1is
=Puv/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----