> As an initial approximation I would use a 32nd of low memory. That means a 1TB machine will have a 32GB crash kernel. Surely that's excessive?!? It would be repeating all the same mistakes people made with hash tables several years ago. > > That can be written to (with enough privileges when no crash kernel is > loaded) reduce the amount of memory reserved by the crash kernel. > > Bernhard does that sound useful to you? > > Amerigo does that seem reasonable? It doesn't sound reasonable to Andi. Why do you even want to grow the crash kernel that much? Is there any real problem with a 64-128MB crash kernel? -Andi > -- ak at linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
