SRU IO Scheduler in Kubuntu 14.04

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:48:34AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Steve Langasek [2014-10-14 13:24 -0700]:
> > > I don't agree with the "highly limited in impact", but I do agree with
> > > the compromise of putting the udev rule into kubuntu-default-settings.
> > > While this isn't an appropriate long-term solution (i. e. it
> > > definitively shouldn't be done that way in Utopic or at least not in
> > > V), I don't know of a more appropriate place for an SRU.

> > Note that this change is already present in utopic.  Are you asking the
> > Kubuntu team to revert this?

> Oh, you mean Utopic's kubuntu-default-settings already has that rule?
> I understood it like we changed the kernel default scheduler in
> utopic.

No, the default kernel scheduler is not changed in utopic.  Even if this
were an acceptable change to make across all desktop environments, there's
pretty clear evidence that it would regress a variety of server workloads.

> > As the Kubuntu team's request specifically concerns asking the TB to
> > expedite the SRU for this

> Oh, that's not how I understood it. I interpreted "proceed with the
> SRU" as "land it in -proposed now instead of well after Utopic's
> release", which I fully agree with. Of course verifying the changes
> will take quite some time as finding enough people with different
> SSD/HDD hardware and getting them to do the measurements will just not
> be done in a week.

> But then again I see no rush. 14.04 has been out for 6 months, and
> everyone who uses it either has learned to get along with the
> sluggishness or disabled balloo, or uses something else. So taking a
> few weeks in -proposed to be sure about the impact of this seems
> adequate. I wouldn't tie it to any results in Utopic, as utopic has a
> different kernel, different software versions etc., so the numbers
> aren't directly comparable anyway.

Numbers wouldn't be directly comparable, but any complaints from users of
14.10 about their Kubuntu desktop performing poorly as a result of this
change should be examined carefully as part of the SRU process.  Maybe there
will be no such complaints, and that's fine.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20141020/9bc96c1e/attachment.pgp>