On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:41 -0500, Chris Lumens wrote: > > >Cool, then the question is at what amount of ram should this kick in at, > > >I went with MIN_GUI_RAM. > > > > > > > That sounds reasonable. Maybe want to do use something like MIN_GUI_RAM + 100MB, > > so as to have atleast MIN_GUI_RAM free when the install.img (which is approx > > 100Mb) lives in RAM. > > I don't like this one bit. Sure, today it's ~ 100 MB, but what about in > two years when it's more like ~ 150 MB and no one remembers this needs > updating? Because I guarantee, no one will remember. How about something like MIN_GUI_RAM > memAvailable? Nothing is really using that function now, it returns memory less what is used by /tmp. That would do away with the hard-coding, and scale into the future. The only variable going forward would be the size of install.img > > Also, you're introducing another memory limit besides MIN_GUI_RAM that > will mean a different set of behavior happens at some random memory > threshold. > You have that now with a difference between http/ftp/hd and media installs when you test iutil.memInstalled() < isys.MIN_GUI_RAM with out taking into account what might be in /tmp, maybe that should be using memAvailable? Jerry _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
