Steve Langasek [2014-10-21 0:44 -0400]:
But without that, something like the proposed cgroup handling is
probably in order.
FYI, something similar is currently being discussed for Tracker, which
has pretty much the same problem:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:44:34AM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
We've agreed that the kubuntu-settings
change is acceptable for an SRU in spite of reservations;
Great, please approve it into trusty-proposed
Jonathan
--
kubuntu-devel mailing list
kubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:25:16AM +0200, Harald Sitter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
Given that essentially lowest priority is requested under CFQ,
equivalent result should be possible to achieve with cgroups
containment.
Specifically
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
A consistent kernel and performance expectations across Ubuntu is also
worthwhile. I don't want someone screw up database/VM/etc. workloads
benchmarks simply
because they happen to have kubuntu-desktop installed or left around
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
A consistent kernel and performance expectations across Ubuntu is also
worthwhile. I don't want someone screw up database/VM/etc. workloads
benchmarks simply
because they happen to have kubuntu-desktop installed or left around
A consistent kernel and performance expectations across Ubuntu is also
worthwhile. I don't want someone screw up database/VM/etc. workloads
benchmarks simply
because they happen to have kubuntu-desktop installed or left around
Are we honestly optimizing for benchmarks now? I'd rather optimize
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:54:54PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Given that essentially lowest priority is requested under CFQ,
equivalent result should be possible to achieve with cgroups
containment.
Specifically by limiting CPU (cpu.shares set to 100 ~= 1/10 of the
default 1024) and/or
On 14 October 2014 12:24, Jonathan Riddell j...@jriddell.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:54:54PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Given that essentially lowest priority is requested under CFQ,
equivalent result should be possible to achieve with cgroups
containment.
Specifically by
On 11 October 2014 04:30, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2014 23:51:18 Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 10 October 2014 11:26, Jonathan Riddell j...@jriddell.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at
On Monday, October 13, 2014 11:54:54 PM Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 11 October 2014 04:30, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2014 23:51:18 Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 10 October 2014 11:26, Jonathan Riddell j...@jriddell.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
Given that essentially lowest priority is requested under CFQ,
equivalent result should be possible to achieve with cgroups
containment.
Specifically by limiting CPU (cpu.shares set to 100 ~= 1/10 of the
default
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
So while I still don't agree that this is free of risk of regression
(e.g.,
a system with both kubuntu and ubuntu desktops installed could see a
direct
On 10 October 2014 11:26, Jonathan Riddell j...@jriddell.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
So while I still don't agree that this is free of risk of regression
(e.g.,
a system with both
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:15:17PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
As I said, the switch to deadline was seen to address existing problems with
applications on the unity desktop (when running on an HDD) becoming
non-responsive under heavy I/O. Switching back to cfq is likely to
reintroduce this
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov x...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 10 October 2014 11:26, Jonathan Riddell j...@jriddell.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
So while I still don't
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Steve Langasek
steve.langa...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:15:17PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
I'd rather work with data which we have right now ( general feedback from
users suggests that baloo performance is quite bad with deadline and
improves
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:26:20AM +0100, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
Is there any further information on this? The upstream Baloo author
would like to know why his work
On Friday, October 10, 2014 23:51:18 Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 10 October 2014 11:26, Jonathan Riddell j...@jriddell.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
So while I still don't agree that
Steve Langasek [2014-10-08 13:10 -0700]:
It has been pointed out that Ubuntu also has an indexer, zeitgeist, which
apparently doesn't suffer from the same problem.
To clarify: For the most part, zeitgeist only stores access events, i.
e. metadata like accessed this video at this time. There
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Steve Langasek [2014-10-08 13:10 -0700]:
It has been pointed out that Ubuntu also has an indexer, zeitgeist, which
apparently doesn't suffer from the same problem.
To clarify: For the most part, zeitgeist only stores
So while I still don't agree that this is free of risk of regression (e.g.,
a system with both kubuntu and ubuntu desktops installed could see a direct
regression under the ubuntu session as a result of this change), I also
Could you elaborate a bit on how this would affect the unity session?
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
So while I still don't agree that this is free of risk of regression (e.g.,
a system with both kubuntu and ubuntu desktops installed could see a direct
regression under the ubuntu session as a result of this change), I also
Could
Hi
As I said, the switch to deadline was seen to address existing problems with
applications on the unity desktop (when running on an HDD) becoming
non-responsive under heavy I/O. Switching back to cfq is likely to
reintroduce this problem.
Right and this data is fairly out of date right?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Stephen Michael Kellat skel...@sdf.org wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:15:17 +0200
Rohan Garg rohang...@kubuntu.org wrote:
[snip]
I thought that Edubuntu was still including both Ubuntu and Kubuntu
on their DVD, which would be a clear example of why this
Me and Rohan would like a second opinion on bug 1378789
[SRU] Set the default IO scheduler to CFQ in Kubuntu Trusty
https://launchpad.net/bugs/1378789
The kernel team have changed the scheduler away from upstream Linux
defaults to deadlock which causes our desktop indexing programme Baloo
to
Cautious is what SRUs are about. If someone else on the SRU team feels
differently, I don't mind being overridden.
--
kubuntu-devel mailing list
kubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:56:42PM +0100, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
Me and Rohan would like a second opinion on bug 1378789
[SRU] Set the default IO scheduler to CFQ in Kubuntu Trusty
https://launchpad.net/bugs/1378789
The kernel team have changed the scheduler away from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/10/14 17:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:56:42PM +0100, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
Me and Rohan would like a second opinion on bug 1378789
[SRU] Set the default IO scheduler to CFQ in Kubuntu Trusty
Hi Colin,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:42:48PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
Also, what exactly do you mean when you say baloo doesn't implement ionice
support? The 'ionice' tool is part of the base system (util-linux). It
would be a simple matter of packaging to always run baloo under
On 2014-10-08 09:36:03 Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com wrote:
I don't think it's at all appropriate for a desktop environment to install a
udev rule which changes the kernel scheduler. That's a severe layering
violation, and it means that anyone who installs kubuntu-desktop on an
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:20:23AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:42:48PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
Also, what exactly do you mean when you say baloo doesn't implement
ionice
support? The 'ionice' tool is part of the base system (util-linux). It
would be
31 matches
Mail list logo
