Comment 118 for bug 525154

Hi,

this is turning into a forum discussion real fast, and really has no
place here. I suggest we take it someplace else. Ubuntu-devel, maybe?

On 2011-07-19 12:17, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On 11-07-18 04:27 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> This appears to be bug #523484.
>> To the best of my understanding, this describes a feature that is missing
> Uhm, not so much "missing" as "broken".
>> when using a separate /var (the ureadahead job will run but not do anything
>> useful).
>
> It's not even that nice. What it will do is litter the boot with error
> messages

I think "litter" is a bit strong. There's a single line that says that
ureadahead terminated with status soandso. That's hardly littering.
And that's about it with regard to the impact of that bug. I have never
seen a system not boot due to it, and I have used (and am using) Lucid
on bare-metal servers, virtual machines, desktops and road warrior
laptops, all with a separate /var.

> which is annoying and distracting at best and a red herring
> when there are other upstart/mountall bugs, at worst.

I'll agree that it is annoying, but any admin that sees the ureadahead
message when a system shows other problems and goes 'oh, ureadahead
croaked, that must be the cause of it all!' seriously needs to drop it
right then and there and go stack shelves somewhere.

>> This is certainly a bug, but not something that we are likely to
>> backport to lucid even when a fix becomes available.
>
> So instead you let the above situation continue on ad infinitum,
> confusing new users?

That's not what Steve said.

>> I think you would be
>> hard pressed to convince any of the Ubuntu developers that it has a major
>> impact on the usability of Ubuntu that systems with a separate /var don't
>> get the boot speed enhancement from ureadahead!

I agree.

> Exactly my point and the point of mine (and others') frustration. You
> guys let a bug get out into the wild by not testing a use-case that is
> and/or should be very common in the server use space and now that it's
> out there, you are just letting it ride.

Again, I agree that the message is annoying, and it would be nice if we
could get rid of it. But I would describe it as 'cosmetic' at best, and
hardly something to get frustrated about, much less fault the developers
for not giving it highest priority.

So is this seriously something to get so worked up about?

Also, you know, Ubuntu makes alphas public for a reason.

Regards,
Oliver