Comment 20 for bug 2032933
Revision history for this message
| Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer) wrote | #20 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
9199653
demo site
(Get the code!)
> @paelzer Are you happy to adjust your regression testing/metrics gathering to increase the
> memory required knowing that it was a conscious decision to switch kernel and incur the
> performance hit for the benefit of using a kernel with more support and less reported bugs?
I am.
In fact I already have.
To be clear, I knew that the change from -kvm to -virtual was a conscious decision (I do not even know how long back I heard xnox talking about it, many years for sure) fixing the many issues xnox mentioned. I just never heard anyone saying or suggesting - and personally didn't expect it to be - that very intense on low-memory / density scenarios.
I'd be happy if everyone here could continue the thought of checking if any further package/module could be omitted (or at least not auto-loaded) for the minimal images. Which should tune us back down a bit, even if that is not all the way to where we were before.