On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:58:46PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:00:50AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> While the minimum requirements are specified by F19 docs: > >> > >> http://fedorapeople.org/groups/docs/release-notes/en-US/sect-Release_Notes-Welcome_to_Fedora_.html#hardware_overview > >> > >> I came-up with recommended on my own by simply multiplying the minimum > >> requirements by 2. > > > > Was there a significant difference when using these recommended values > > rather than the minimum ones? I'm trying to figure out where this patch is > > coming from/why it's needed. > > The docs (linked above) say: "The figures below are a recommended > minimum for the default installation. Your requirements may differ, > and most applications will benefit from more than the minimum > resources." and as I said in the log, I just came-up with them on my > own. Feel free to suggest different/better values. Yup, I've seen that quote, but this is awfully unspecific. I'd tend to just have the minimum values in libosinfo unless you observed significant improvements with your recommended values. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpFfbqzWM4UJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
