irqbalance and at daemons by default?

Jamie Strandboge jamie at
Wed Mar 27 17:35:08 UTC 2013

On 03/26/2013 02:07 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:02:19AM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> The same can be said for irqbalance, except it does clock up cputime:
>> $ ps -C irqbalance -o cputime,etime => 00:40:55 82-02:24:34
>> ...which is 30s/day on a single-user workstation
> There is a cost to running irqbalance, yes.  But if you're seeing any load
> from it, that implies that you do have multiple cores, and irqbalance is
> doing something *useful* with that CPU time.
>> $ ps -C irqbalance -o rss => 392kb
>> But this is all missing a core tenet of Debian/Ubuntu: you select what
>> you want running and aren't imposed upon.
> That's not a core tenet in Ubuntu. :)  The core tenet for Ubuntu is that we
> make opinionated decisions to ensure Ubuntu works out of the box for users.
>> DL> at has reverse dependency lsb-core, that is if we care to support
>> DL> lsb-core set out of the box.
>> Out the box, lsb-base is installed; lsb-core isn't, so that doesn't
>> change anything (you'd still need to install lsb-core which would pull
>> in atd).
>> If we have no solid technical reasoning for imposing these daemons by
>> default, I'll propose we don't.
> The historical rationale for atd being included by default is "this is a
> standard part of Unix that users expect to find there" (a rationale that
> was, in effect, inherited from Debian).  However, of all the services that
> we run by default, this is by far the most arcane; "1%" of our users is
> severely overstating how much atd gets used, and unlike cron, nothing that's
> installed by default relies on it.  And this is definitely the service that
> most often has questions raised about its presence... and several Canonical
> OEM projects have definitely removed it from their installs in the interest
> of reducing footprint, which is going to be a recurring theme on the phone
> stack.
> So I would say that the time has probably come for us to remove atd from the
> default Ubuntu system.  Other opinions?
+1 for removing on client
-1 for removing on server

There is very little cost to have atd on a server, and a server is one
place where users should expect something approaching a standard Unix
system. I couldn't recall or find any CVEs against 'at' either.

Jamie Strandboge       

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list