On 26 March 2013 21:55, Chow Loong Jin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/03/2013 18:38, Daniel J Blueman wrote: >> When setting up Ubuntu servers and desktops, two daemons I always >> remove are the atd and irqbalance. >> >> irqbalance is perhaps good when you have a server with quad-port NIC >> with a high rate of small packets and have found it to benefit over >> the kernel's interrupt allocation (but wastes time and energy >> otherwise); finally, the demographic who know and use the at daemon >> must be >1% surely. >> >> What justification do we have for continuing forcing these on users by >> default? (and can we win back some a slightly leaner, securer setup by >> revisiting this logic?) > > I'm not sure you win much back: > - apt-cache show at | sed -n 's/^Size: //p' => 37376 > - ps -C atd -o cputime,etime => 00:00:00 8-03:30:27 > - ps -C atd -o rss => 68 > > So all in all, 37.4k of disk space, 68k of memory, and approximately 0 seconds > of CPU time out of 8d 3h. > > Are there many security vulnerabilities in atd?
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 $ 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. 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. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel J Blueman -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
