On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I think we should specify some sane recommended values. There is a reason why minimum and recommended are kept separate. The doc might be vague but one thing is clear from it: Better have more resources than these minimum ones if possible. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
