On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 05:30 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 04:40 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > [...] > > > and since some > > > people like to run domains with much less memory, I'm inclined to say > > > that this is 'wontfix' for squeeze. But I'm not sure just how small > > > they are likely to be (while still running Debian). Maybe the cost > > > isn't that significant. > > > > http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch03s04.html.en and > > http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch03s04.html.en both say the > > minimum is 64M. > > > > We are talking about going from 128KB to 280KB reserved for the p2m. > > Which for a 64M machine is going from 0.20% to 0.43% of RAM overhead. > > > > I'm not sure if <64M is realistic. I have a (32-bit, physical) machine I > > use as a firewall which has 32M and apt-get and friends really do grind > > along (it's also an old Pentium with a tiny disk, so there are other > > factors in that). > > > > I think we are only talking about the limit for a 64 bit guest? I would > > guess that those are more unlikely to be given tiny amounts of RAM > > compared with 32 bit. > > Yes, that seems reasonable. Let's do it (but after -39). Sounds like a plan. I'll wait for -40 to begin then check that in. Cheers, Ian. -- Ian Campbell Better hope you get what you want before you stop wanting it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part