On 10/31/2013 03:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bill Nottingham
<notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Josh Boyer (jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
>> (As for memory-critical cloud... I have no idea what that is to be
>> honest. All I hear from the cloud people is "smaller is better".
>> Mostly that's image size, not memory overhead but I can imagine they
>> want that limited as well.)
>
> Admittedly, it's not the same as unswappable kernel memory, but I wonder if
> for 2MB we can find that sort of working set size reductions in other places
> on the cloud image.
Quite possibly so. I just hate to be wasteful if none of the 3
products clearly has a need. If 1024 is sufficient, we'll likely go
with that.
The reason I'm pushing 1024 as a target is that we had a previous request from
users at SGI for a 1024. At least that is something we can point to instead of
picking a value that no one really wants.
IMO of course ;)
P.