Hi folks,
most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database related stuff which MySQL depends on).
It's the "akonadi" package that requires a MySQL server to run. Google shows that there's been a long discussion about this issue some months ago. Unfortunately, akonadi cannot be uninstalled, because that will break a lot of KDE dependencies.
Is there an easy way around it? An end-user desktop environment requires a full-blown local database to be setup and run. Wow, I didn't know that so many users are professional database admins and know what to do. No KDE without MySQL.
For now, the KDE 4.2 stuff can be ignored:
yum update -x akonadi -x 'kde*' -x 'PyKDE*' -x ksysguardd -x oxygen-icon-theme
Of couse, KDE updates cannot be ignored forever ...
Is this MySQL dependency by intention? Couldn't find anything helpful on this or on the devel mailing list, although this is a big issue, IMHO.
Confused ... Andreas
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database related stuff which MySQL depends on).
It's the "akonadi" package that requires a MySQL server to run. Google shows that there's been a long discussion about this issue some months ago. Unfortunately, akonadi cannot be uninstalled, because that will break a lot of KDE dependencies.
Is there an easy way around it? An end-user desktop environment requires a full-blown local database to be setup and run. Wow, I didn't know that so many users are professional database admins and know what to do. No KDE without MySQL.
For now, the KDE 4.2 stuff can be ignored:
yum update -x akonadi -x 'kde*' -x 'PyKDE*' -x ksysguardd -x oxygen-icon-theme
Of couse, KDE updates cannot be ignored forever ...
Is this MySQL dependency by intention? Couldn't find anything helpful on this or on the devel mailing list, although this is a big issue, IMHO.
FWIW, I did notice a screen pop up during the most recent update...but it was hidden behind a terminal window. I was going to go back and try to figure out was it was all about....but subsequently forgot about it. Your post did enlighten me as to what happened as I now recall seeing "akonadi" at some point.
But, I have been using the latest version of KDE for the past several days...and I haven't been bothered or presented with the need to know anything about MySQL. I only now notice there is an instance of MySQL running not taking up much resources. I'm not sure it would have come to my attention if you hadn't written your post.
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
On 2/14/09, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database related stuff which MySQL depends on).
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
Linux bloat continues unabated.
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 20:37 -0700, Jake Peavy wrote:
On 2/14/09, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote: Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote: > > > most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if > you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, > installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database > related stuff which MySQL depends on).
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
Linux bloat continues unabated.
---- I think...
- that you would have to have kde-pim package installed to bloat here
- agreed on bloat but considering that my Acer Aspire One is 10 Gb Windows installation and 5 Gb Fedora 10 and I have a lot more 'stuff' installed in Fedora.
Just sayin'
Craig
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 11:31 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database related stuff which MySQL depends on).
It's the "akonadi" package that requires a MySQL server to run. Google shows that there's been a long discussion about this issue some months ago. Unfortunately, akonadi cannot be uninstalled, because that will break a lot of KDE dependencies.
Is there an easy way around it? An end-user desktop environment requires a full-blown local database to be setup and run. Wow, I didn't know that so many users are professional database admins and know what to do. No KDE without MySQL.
For now, the KDE 4.2 stuff can be ignored:
yum update -x akonadi -x 'kde*' -x 'PyKDE*' -x ksysguardd -x oxygen-icon-theme
Of couse, KDE updates cannot be ignored forever ...
Is this MySQL dependency by intention? Couldn't find anything helpful on this or on the devel mailing list, although this is a big issue, IMHO.
FWIW, I did notice a screen pop up during the most recent update...but it was hidden behind a terminal window. I was going to go back and try to figure out was it was all about....but subsequently forgot about it. Your post did enlighten me as to what happened as I now recall seeing "akonadi" at some point.
But, I have been using the latest version of KDE for the past several days...and I haven't been bothered or presented with the need to know anything about MySQL. I only now notice there is an instance of MySQL running not taking up much resources. I'm not sure it would have come to my attention if you hadn't written your post.
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
---- thanks for the info - I was sort of wondering about this myself but my attention has been on trying to get the little damn 1024x600 screen to a larger virtual display.
It does seem curious to me that they would have chosen MySQL instead of SQLite
Craig
Jake Peavy wrote:
On 2/14/09, *Ed Greshko* <Ed.Greshko@greshko.com mailto:Ed.Greshko@greshko.com> wrote:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote: > > > most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if > you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, > installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database > related stuff which MySQL depends on). Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
Linux bloat continues unabated.
Different people have different definitions for "bloat". If it is disk space usage...it seems it adds about 21MB in disk usage. Is that the big issue?
On Sunday 15 February 2009 04:14:05 Craig White wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 20:37 -0700, Jake Peavy wrote:
On 2/14/09, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote: > most people with automatic updates might not have noticed, but if > you look closer, the recent bunch of updates, including KDE 4.2, > installs the MySQL server on the machine (and some other database > related stuff which MySQL depends on). Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
Linux bloat continues unabated.
I think...
that you would have to have kde-pim package installed to bloat here
agreed on bloat but considering that my Acer Aspire One is 10 Gb
Windows installation and 5 Gb Fedora 10 and I have a lot more 'stuff' installed in Fedora.
Agreed. My other laptop has to dual-boot with XP. However, I only require it for one application. I partitioned it with 8GB for XP system (no data) and to my surprise the most basic install filled it to danger point. I could certainly run a modern linux distro, with more applications, in the same space.
More importantly, in linux, if you think something does install too much, you do have a choice.
Anne
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 11:15 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 04:14:05 Craig White wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 20:37 -0700, Jake Peavy wrote:
Linux bloat continues unabated.
I think...
that you would have to have kde-pim package installed to bloat here
agreed on bloat but considering that my Acer Aspire One is 10 Gb
Windows installation and 5 Gb Fedora 10 and I have a lot more 'stuff' installed in Fedora.
Agreed. My other laptop has to dual-boot with XP. However, I only require it for one application. I partitioned it with 8GB for XP system (no data) and to my surprise the most basic install filled it to danger point. I could certainly run a modern linux distro, with more applications, in the same space.
More importantly, in linux, if you think something does install too much, you do have a choice.
---- 9.7 Gb on Windows XP... - WinXP SP3 - AVG Anti-virus (free version) - OpenOffice 3.0 - iTunes - FileSync (to sync my iTunes music directory from server to my 'music drive' (fat volume not included in the 10Gb and accessible from Linux too) - Firefox - Thunderbird - Acrobat Reader - Removed trial version of MS Office, MacAfee Internet Security
I think that is sort of a Windows minimum myself.
3.9 Gb on Fedora 10 - GNOME & KDE full packages - Big installation of games, OpenOffice, Scribus, Webdev, Acrobat Reader, FlashPlayer, Rhythmbox, mplayer, gxine
I appreciate the notion of bloat but on a 'desktop' system, I am less concerned with bloat then I am on a 'server' system.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
It does seem curious to me that they would have chosen MySQL instead of SQLite
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Why_not_use_sqlite.3F
Kevin Kofler
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Is there an easy way around it? An end-user desktop environment requires a full-blown local database to be setup and run. Wow, I didn't know that so many users are professional database admins and know what to do. No KDE without MySQL.
You don't have to configure anything, Akonadi starts a per-user instance of mysqld automatically. But it needs the mysql-server package for that purpose.
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Do_I_need_a_running_MySQL_serve...
Is this MySQL dependency by intention? Couldn't find anything helpful on this or on the devel mailing list, although this is a big issue, IMHO.
Yes, this is by (upstream's) intention, we have no other choice.
FYI, Akonadi can also be configured to use a central MySQL server somewhere, but this is not the default configuration and as you say we definitely cannot expect our users to be database admins, so we have to make the default configuration work, thus the hard dependency on mysql-server. (Unfortunately, RPM still does not support soft dependencies.)
Kevin Kofler
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 22:11 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Is there an easy way around it? An end-user desktop environment requires a full-blown local database to be setup and run. Wow, I didn't know that so many users are professional database admins and know what to do. No KDE without MySQL.
You don't have to configure anything, Akonadi starts a per-user instance of mysqld automatically. But it needs the mysql-server package for that purpose.
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Do_I_need_a_running_MySQL_serve...
Is this MySQL dependency by intention? Couldn't find anything helpful on this or on the devel mailing list, although this is a big issue, IMHO.
Yes, this is by (upstream's) intention, we have no other choice.
FYI, Akonadi can also be configured to use a central MySQL server somewhere, but this is not the default configuration and as you say we definitely cannot expect our users to be database admins, so we have to make the default configuration work, thus the hard dependency on mysql-server. (Unfortunately, RPM still does not support soft dependencies.)
---- and apparently a real problem for people like me who use NFS for home directories
Craig
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 17:15 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Craig White wrote:
and apparently a real problem for people like me who use NFS for home directories
"apparently" how? Are there verifiable/concrete problems here?
---- well I haven't gotten there yet but 'they' do read...
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Deployment_issues
Craig
Craig White wrote:
well I haven't gotten there yet but 'they' do read...
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Deployment_issues
Well, none of the issues with NFS are unsurmountable:
Multiple access: Should multiple Akonadi instances' mysqlds access a single set of data files the mysql will likely corrupt the data. This can happen in any NFS+YP installation where users can log onto any machine and access shared homes. MySQL relies on filesystem locking to prevent multiple access. MySQL multiple instance docu.
Should not be a problem if each user only runs Akonadi on one of the machines sharing that volume at a time. Different users have different Akonadi databases. And if your NFS installation has working locking, you won't corrupt your data if you try, just fail to access it. (That said, NFS locking tends to be broken one way or the other, so I'd suggest being careful and not attempting to run Akonadi concurrently on multiple machines for any given user.)
InnoDB tables should not be used on NFS.
This is pretty much the same as the above, only this time when the locking is working as designed. From the given link:
It is not a good idea to configure InnoDB to use datafiles or logfiles on NFS volumes. Otherwise, the files might be locked by other processes and become unavailable for use by MySQL.
Again, that shouldn't happen if you only run Akonadi on one of the machines sharing that volume at a time, and you won't be affected by other users' locks because the database is per user.
Pretty much the same kinds of corruption or lock contention would happen if Akonadi was using flat files. Having processes on 2 computers manage the same NFS-shared file is always a bad idea, with or without MySQL.
NFS speed: MySQL documentation recommends against locating its data files on network shares.
That's a valid concern, but I don't think it will be that big a problem.
Kevin Kofler
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
If every applications starts its own copy of mysql, then this is indeed a big issue because that doesn't scale well. There are, for example, GDBM, Berkeley DB and SQLite. I've read the reason why akonadi people don't use SQLite, but that's an old dispute in akonadi development, so it doesn't convince me and sounds more like some old prejudice.
SQLite is used by a lot of applications for fast and concurrent access to data. What makes akonadi so different to all these applications? And if SQLite has problems, why not try to fix it? The SQLite team is very actively developing their software.
One single MySQL instance as central storage for all applications that cannot use SQLite & Co. for some reason -- well, that might be the future of Unix desktop environments. Sure, why not. But a local copy of MySQL for every single application that needs to store some bits of data -- that's no good design.
However, I now understand that the decision has been made for KDE 4.2 by intention, and it's not a Fedora issue, but all Unix distributions that ship KDE 4.2 will require a MySQL server installation. The only way to avoid this is to remove all KDE stuff. Well, until somebody of the GNOME folks comes up with the same idea ...
I should be happy that there's no dependency on Oracle, otherwise I had to buy a more powerful workstation. ;-)
Thanks for all the answers to my questions ... Andreas
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
If every applications starts its own copy of mysql, then this is indeed a big issue because that doesn't scale well. There are, for example, GDBM, Berkeley DB and SQLite. I've read the reason why akonadi people don't use SQLite, but that's an old dispute in akonadi development, so it doesn't convince me and sounds more like some old prejudice.
SQLite is used by a lot of applications for fast and concurrent access to data. What makes akonadi so different to all these applications? And if SQLite has problems, why not try to fix it? The SQLite team is very actively developing their software.
One single MySQL instance as central storage for all applications that cannot use SQLite & Co. for some reason -- well, that might be the future of Unix desktop environments. Sure, why not. But a local copy of MySQL for every single application that needs to store some bits of data -- that's no good design.
However, I now understand that the decision has been made for KDE 4.2 by intention, and it's not a Fedora issue, but all Unix distributions that ship KDE 4.2 will require a MySQL server installation. The only way to avoid this is to remove all KDE stuff. Well, until somebody of the GNOME folks comes up with the same idea ...
I should be happy that there's no dependency on Oracle, otherwise I had to buy a more powerful workstation. ;-)
Thanks for all the answers to my questions ... Andreas
When I have more time I will look at it... However, I doubt that each application will spawn a new instance of mysql since that would certainly defeat the purpose of a centralized database. Looking at what little documentation I have...I am confident that it is one instance of mysql per user.
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
If every applications starts its own copy of mysql\
In this caes, it's one mysql instance for akonadi, which all akonadi-using apps will share (per user, by default).
-- Rex
2009/2/15 Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
They could have used some lighter database engine, like sqlite.
2009/2/16 Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
If every applications starts its own copy of mysql\
In this caes, it's one mysql instance for akonadi, which all akonadi-using apps will share (per user, by default).
I think he was talking about other apps (non-KDE ones). Say I start emacs and it want's to store cache and configuration info in a mysql database, or I want to use rythmbox (which is a GNOME app) and GNOME start's it's own mysql instance.
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu:
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
If every applications starts its own copy of mysql\
In this caes, it's one mysql instance for akonadi, which all akonadi-using apps will share (per user, by default).
I think he was talking about other apps (non-KDE ones). Say I start emacs and it want's to store cache and configuration info in a mysql database, or I want to use rythmbox (which is a GNOME app) and GNOME start's it's own mysql instance.
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
What part of KDE requires MySQL server? None that I am aware of. But then I build my own from source and not rely on these asinine package dependencies from binary packages. There are NO KDE components that /require/ MySQL. You can' specify database support, but it's not required.
2009/2/16 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
What part of KDE requires MySQL server? None that I am aware of. But then I build my own from source and not rely on these asinine package dependencies from binary packages. There are NO KDE components that /require/ MySQL. You can' specify database support, but it's not required.
Please, enlight me. How can akonadi work without a mysql instance?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Which_DBMS_does_Akonadi_use.3F
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
What part of KDE requires MySQL server? None that I am aware of. But then I build my own from source and not rely on these asinine package dependencies from binary packages. There are NO KDE components that /require/ MySQL. You can' specify database support, but it's not required.
Please, enlight me. How can akonadi work without a mysql instance?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Which_DBMS_does_Akonadi_use.3F
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
Of course. I don't run akonadi server at all. And it works just fine. As for all the comments about KDE being 'Vista' I'd like to point out that GNOME uses Beagle (if I recall) which is very similar to Akonadi. GNOME's latest releases suck so bad I will never go back. KDE 4.2 is the best version of KDE4 and is simply amazing.
Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
What part of KDE requires MySQL server? None that I am aware of. But then I build my own from source and not rely on these asinine package dependencies from binary packages. There are NO KDE components that /require/ MySQL. You can' specify database support, but it's not required.
Please, enlight me. How can akonadi work without a mysql instance?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Which_DBMS_does_Akonadi_use.3F
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
And yes akonadi does require MySWL, but KDE 4.2 does NOT require akonadi. So my point is still very valid.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Martín Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
If a component you want requires a resource, it is, by definition, necessary. Or are you using an alternate definition of necessary.
As an uninformed observer, the requirement of mysql-server seems over kill, but it's a 21MB download that only consumes as much resources as is required at any one time.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
If a component you want requires a resource, it is, by definition, necessary. Or are you using an alternate definition of necessary.
No, that works for me, however, the OP mentions KDE4.2 /requiring/ MySQL. And, no it does not require it for every instance. But yes if it is a component you want, it is necessary. But that's splitting hairs. KDE4.2 runs just fine without akonadi, therefor it does not require MySQL. If for whatever reason 4.2 would NOT run fine without MySQL, then I'd agree with you. To me, akonadi is useless and a waste of resources, much like Beagle is on GNOME.
But then, to me GNOME is a waste of resources. I'd like to speak to the goon decided on GNOME's latest interface. If anything, GNOME is Linux Vista. It's poorly designed and with no thoughts to whether the end user finds it usable or not.
As an uninformed observer, the requirement of mysql-server seems over kill, but it's a 21MB download that only consumes as much resources as is required at any one time.
On Monday 16 February 2009 18:58:55 Martín Marqués wrote:
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
Yes. I'm still looking forward to eventually benefitting from akonadi, but it's not for me at the moment. KOrganizer asks me if I want to put entries into an akonadi-compatible diary, and I decline, selecting my old-style one. Absolutely no akonadi configuration has been done at this point.
It is, in fact, the right answer, IMO, but still in relatively early days.
Anne
On Monday 16 February 2009 16:44:03 Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/15 Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com:
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
They could have used some lighter database engine, like sqlite.
I would rather see one instance of akonadi/mysql servicing many apps, than many apps each having its own sqlite instance.
Anne
it was hidden behind a terminal window. I was going to go back and try
to figure out was it was all about....but subsequently forgot about it. Your post did enlighten me as to what happened as I now recall seeing "akonadi" at some point.
But, I have been using the latest version of KDE for the past several days...and I haven't been bothered or presented with the need to know anything about MySQL. I only now notice there is an instance of MySQL running not taking up much resources. I'm not sure it would have come to my attention if you hadn't written your post.
Took a quick look at http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/ and on the surface seems like a reasonable direction/idea. So, not quite sure as to why you may consider this to be a big issue.
-- ... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed. Mei-Mei.Greshko@greshko.com http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
I double that. Why should it bother a user if the akonadi interface takes care of all database operations. All the user has to do is fill in gui.
2009/2/16 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
Martín Marqués wrote:
Please, enlight me. How can akonadi work without a mysql instance?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Which_DBMS_does_Akonadi_use.3F
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
And yes akonadi does require MySWL, but KDE 4.2 does NOT require akonadi. So my point is still very valid.
OK. By default akonadi starts when I enter my session. What do I have to do for this not to happen again at logging? Stopping akonadi during my open session will make it not start in the next logging?
On Monday 16 February 2009 20:22:37 Martín Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
Martín Marqués wrote:
Please, enlight me. How can akonadi work without a mysql instance?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Which_DBMS_does_Akonadi_use .3F
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
And yes akonadi does require MySWL, but KDE 4.2 does NOT require akonadi. So my point is still very valid.
OK. By default akonadi starts when I enter my session.
What have you got that is using it?
What do I have to do for this not to happen again at logging? Stopping akonadi during my open session will make it not start in the next logging?
You could always stop akonadi then do a Save Session, but something must be using it, or you have started it through systemsettings, if that's possible, so be careful that you are not going to break something you want.
As a matter of interest, what resources is it using? cpu and ram?
Anne
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 20:33 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
You could always stop akonadi then do a Save Session, but something must be using it, or you have started it through systemsettings, if that's possible, so be careful that you are not going to break something you want.
Anne, I also have akonadi running but have no idea why:
% pgrep -fl akonadi 10876 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 10878 akonadiserver 10880 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults-file=/home/poc/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf --datadir=/home/poc/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ --socket=/home/poc/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 10901 /usr/bin/akonadi_kabc_resource --identifier akonadi_kabc_resource_0 10902 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_0 10910 /usr/bin/akonadi_kabc_resource --identifier akonadi_kabc_resource_1
I don't use any of the kdepim components that I'm aware of. Furthermore, attempting to remove akonadi leads to removing virtually all of KDE including kdebase and kdelibs, so the question as to whether it's "necessary" seems academic.
poc
Sorry for that off-topic question, but have the KDE4.2 packages already been released for regular online update (for F10), or are they still in testing?
Thanks, Clemens
On Monday 16 February 2009 20:59:05 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 20:33 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
You could always stop akonadi then do a Save Session, but something must be using it, or you have started it through systemsettings, if that's possible, so be careful that you are not going to break something you want.
Anne, I also have akonadi running but have no idea why:
% pgrep -fl akonadi 10876 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 10878 akonadiserver 10880 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults-file=/home/poc/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf --datadir=/home/poc/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ --socket=/home/poc/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 10901 /usr/bin/akonadi_kabc_resource --identifier akonadi_kabc_resource_0 10902 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_0 10910 /usr/bin/akonadi_kabc_resource --identifier akonadi_kabc_resource_1
I don't use any of the kdepim components that I'm aware of. Furthermore, attempting to remove akonadi leads to removing virtually all of KDE including kdebase and kdelibs, so the question as to whether it's "necessary" seems academic.
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin? but I use it (for testing purposes) with Kabc:
2560 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 2562 akonadiserver 2569 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults- file=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf -- datadir=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ -- socket=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 2622 /usr/bin/akonadi_mailthreader_agent --identifier akonadi_mailthreader_agent 2623 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_2
Works well an not resource hungry. If you don't want/need to use it disable it in systems settings.
Colin
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 14:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
As for all the comments about KDE being 'Vista' I'd like to point out that GNOME uses Beagle (if I recall) which is very similar to Akonadi.
*Can* use Beagle, if you install it, if you want to.
Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org wrote:
And yes akonadi does require MySWL, but KDE 4.2 does NOT require akonadi. So my point is still very valid.
In Fedora 10, akonadi cannot be un-installed without removing KDE. And KDE cannot be updated to version 4.2 without updating akonadi as well. In the end, KDE 4.2 requires MySQL (server) to be installed.
Yes, you may run KDE without akonadi, and akonadi may use remote databases, but Fedora 10 insists on installing MySQL server packages if you want to have KDE 4.2. And by default, akonadi uses a local MySQL instance. That's weird for a desktop workstation, and it's the wrong way to use a database like MySQL. Are all KDE core developers aware of this new dependency, and are they all happy about it?
However, I accept the fact that KDE 4.2 now depends on MySQL, and installing a different Linux distribution after all these years won't help because sooner or later all other Linux distributions will have the same dependencies which come from akonadi (and without akonadi, you cannot install KDE). So, until GNOME people start their local MySQL instances as well, the only option is to remove KDE from the system.
It's okay. Fedora has always been more GNOME-ish than KDE-ish, so it's not such a big loss. I'm not using KDE as my default desktop environment, but I liked some KDE apps. Will search for alternatives.
Don't worry ... Andreas
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Andreas M. Kirchwitz amk@spamfence.net wrote:
Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org wrote:
And yes akonadi does require MySWL, but KDE 4.2 does NOT require akonadi. So my point is still very valid.
In Fedora 10, akonadi cannot be un-installed without removing KDE. And KDE cannot be updated to version 4.2 without updating akonadi as well. In the end, KDE 4.2 requires MySQL (server) to be installed.
Yes, you may run KDE without akonadi, and akonadi may use remote databases, but Fedora 10 insists on installing MySQL server packages if you want to have KDE 4.2. And by default, akonadi uses a local MySQL instance. That's weird for a desktop workstation, and it's the wrong way to use a database like MySQL. Are all KDE core developers aware of this new dependency, and are they all happy about it?
However, I accept the fact that KDE 4.2 now depends on MySQL, and installing a different Linux distribution after all these years won't help because sooner or later all other Linux distributions will have the same dependencies which come from akonadi (and without akonadi, you cannot install KDE). So, until GNOME people start their local MySQL instances as well, the only option is to remove KDE from the system.
It's okay. Fedora has always been more GNOME-ish than KDE-ish, so it's not such a big loss. I'm not using KDE as my default desktop environment, but I liked some KDE apps. Will search for alternatives.
Don't worry ... Andreas
By your comment one would think that installing mysql-server brings some great evil with it.
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 21:35 +0000, Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin? but I use it (for testing purposes) with Kabc:
2560 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 2562 akonadiserver 2569 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults- file=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf -- datadir=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ -- socket=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 2622 /usr/bin/akonadi_mailthreader_agent --identifier akonadi_mailthreader_agent 2623 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_2
Works well an not resource hungry. If you don't want/need to use it disable it in systems settings.
I've never heard of Kabc and have no idea what it is. There's no file with that name installed anywhere on my system (I checked).
I'd still like to know why I'm running akonadi.
poc
Thanx ann Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message----- From: Anne Wilson annew@kde.org
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:42:35 To: Community assistance, encouragement,and advice for using Fedora.fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 21:35 +0000, Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin? but I use it (for testing purposes) with Kabc:
2560 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 2562 akonadiserver 2569 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults- file=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf -- datadir=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ -- socket=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 2622 /usr/bin/akonadi_mailthreader_agent --identifier akonadi_mailthreader_agent 2623 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_2
Works well an not resource hungry. If you don't want/need to use it disable it in systems settings.
I've never heard of Kabc and have no idea what it is. There's no file with that name installed anywhere on my system (I checked).
I'd still like to know why I'm running akonadi.
poc
Kabc is the K Address Book, it's always been called kabc
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:44 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 21:35 +0000, Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin? but I use it (for testing purposes) with Kabc:
2560 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 2562 akonadiserver 2569 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults- file=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf -- datadir=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ -- socket=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 2622 /usr/bin/akonadi_mailthreader_agent --identifier akonadi_mailthreader_agent 2623 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_2
Works well an not resource hungry. If you don't want/need to use it disable it in systems settings.
I've never heard of Kabc and have no idea what it is. There's no file with that name installed anywhere on my system (I checked).
I'd still like to know why I'm running akonadi.
poc
Kabc is the K Address Book, it's always been called kabc
Well, you learn something new every day. I was searching for Kabc, not kabc.
I still don't use it though, nor Kontact, nor Knotes, nor Kmail. So why am I running akonadi? I occasionally run Konqueror and Dolphin. Would that explain it?
poc
Linux bloat continues unabated.
I think...
that you would have to have kde-pim package installed to bloat here
agreed on bloat but considering that my Acer Aspire One is 10 Gb
Windows installation and 5 Gb Fedora 10 and I have a lot more 'stuff' installed in Fedora.
Agreed. My other laptop has to dual-boot with XP. However, I only require it for one application. I partitioned it with 8GB for XP system (no data) and to my surprise the most basic install filled it to danger point. I could certainly run a modern linux distro, with more applications, in the same space.
More importantly, in linux, if you think something does install too much, you do have a choice.
Anne
Looking at KDE 4.2, which seems to have sacrificed functionality for good looks & an enhanced (but difficult to navigate & configure interface), it seems a part of Linux seems to be moving the Windows way (re: Vista's complex operation, non-intuitive functions & the 'aero' interface) ... choice in Linux seems to be going the Redmond way (probably an overstatement, but now may be a good time for a check).
Hope the next OO.org will not present us a telly-tubby look with a 'ribbon'.
Jay
Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin?
Actually I think Akonadi is simply set up to autostart as a service, no matter whether you actually have stuff using it or not.
Kevin Kofler
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
In Fedora 10, akonadi cannot be un-installed without removing KDE. And KDE cannot be updated to version 4.2 without updating akonadi as well. In the end, KDE 4.2 requires MySQL (server) to be installed.
And where's the problem? It doesn't use much disk space and you don't have to configure anything, you only need the executable. (And the systemwide service, which Akonadi does not need, is disabled by default in the mysql-server package anyway, as it ought to be.) Why is it a problem that you need an executable which happens to be called mysqld? How's that worse than, say, kded4 or to take a GNOME example, gnome-settings-daemon or gnome-keyring-daemon? It's just a daemon which happens to be a database.
And by default, akonadi uses a local MySQL instance. That's weird for a desktop workstation, and it's the wrong way to use a database like MySQL.
What alternative do you suggest? You surely can't expect all users to configure their own database server! Starting up a local, automatically configured, per-user instance is the only possible default which just works. You can set it up to use a central server if you don't want a local one.
However, I accept the fact that KDE 4.2 now depends on MySQL, and installing a different Linux distribution after all these years won't help because sooner or later all other Linux distributions will have the same dependencies which come from akonadi (and without akonadi, you cannot install KDE). So, until GNOME people start their local MySQL instances as well, the only option is to remove KDE from the system.
No, your other option is to just accept that MySQL is required. I don't see where the problem is.
Kevin Kofler
Martín Marqués wrote:
They could have used some lighter database engine, like sqlite.
They tried. It didn't work for them. The alternatives they had were trying to get SQLite fixed and delaying Akonadi for a couple years or just using MySQL which works now. I can't really blame them for their decision, even if it means larger dependencies than strictly necessary (but that's really the _only_ complaint you can make about that decision). It's not like they're requiring you to do any administration work for that MySQL instance.
Kevin Kofler
Ed Greshko wrote:
When I have more time I will look at it... However, I doubt that each application will spawn a new instance of mysql since that would certainly defeat the purpose of a centralized database. Looking at what little documentation I have...I am confident that it is one instance of mysql per user.
It is, as long as only Akonadi does it. But I think his point was that there may be other services or applications starting to do the same, which will then use separate databases.
Kevin Kofler
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:44 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 21:35 +0000, Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin? but I use it (for testing purposes) with Kabc:
2560 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 2562 akonadiserver 2569 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults- file=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf -- datadir=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ -- socket=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 2622 /usr/bin/akonadi_mailthreader_agent --identifier akonadi_mailthreader_agent 2623 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_2
Works well an not resource hungry. If you don't want/need to use it disable it in systems settings.
I've never heard of Kabc and have no idea what it is. There's no file with that name installed anywhere on my system (I checked).
I'd still like to know why I'm running akonadi.
poc
Kabc is the K Address Book, it's always been called kabc
Well, you learn something new every day. I was searching for Kabc, not kabc.
I didn't think yum search was case-sensitive, that may be a bug.
I still don't use it though, nor Kontact, nor Knotes, nor Kmail. So why am I running akonadi? I occasionally run Konqueror and Dolphin. Would that explain it?
I don't think so, then again I haven't noticed this akonadi as yet, if it is running, it's been quiet.
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 02:38 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Well, you learn something new every day. I was searching for Kabc,
not
kabc.
I didn't think yum search was case-sensitive, that may be a bug.
I didn't use yum search. To absolutely sure, I used 'locate Kabc'. Of course I should have used 'locate -i kabc'.
And in fact both 'yum search Kabc' and 'yum search kabc' turn up nothing. Which is not surprising given that Kabc (kabc) is not a package, it's part of kdepimlibs.
I still don't use it though, nor Kontact, nor Knotes, nor Kmail. So
why
am I running akonadi? I occasionally run Konqueror and Dolphin.
Would
that explain it?
I don't think so, then again I haven't noticed this akonadi as yet, if it is running, it's been quiet.
pgrep -fl akonadi
poc
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 07:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin?
Actually I think Akonadi is simply set up to autostart as a service, no matter whether you actually have stuff using it or not.
Not good, on general principles. Even if it's not consuming any resources (and of course nothing that's running is consuming *zero* resources) it's a potential security problem to have stuff running "just because". I don't say it's the only thing that does this, but that doesn't make it right.
poc
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
By your comment one would think that installing mysql-server brings some great evil with it.
Maybe not that bad, but one might legitimately feel dirty because of it, anyway.
In a similar case for me, I had a web server which was fully driven by postgresql. Everything on the server that needed a database used pg. Then I had to configure it to run a mail server, and some component of that required MySQL.
I unfortunately didn't have time to compile it from source or research alternatives. So today, my postgresql server has MySQL installed just to satisfy some dependency. Not evil; I just would not have preferred it that way.
-Alan
On Monday 16 February 2009 20:59:05 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 20:33 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
You could always stop akonadi then do a Save Session, but something must be using it, or you have started it through systemsettings, if that's possible, so be careful that you are not going to break something you want.
Anne, I also have akonadi running but have no idea why:
So have I.
I've learned a bit more about this over the last 24 hours. It seems that the server listens for requests from many applications. Client instances are opened, one per active user, as and when required. I take it that that means that we have one low-resource application running (listening) in readiness for developments. As I said, at the moment I'm not aware of using anything akonadi-based. I've no doubt, though, that over the coming months developments in various apps will start to use this. With the efficiency gains to be expected, they are certain to.
I've seen no evidence to suggest that there is any performance hit or any other issue with the current situation, so I'll happily sit back and wait for the goodies to arrive :-)
Anne
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 02:38:26 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 21:35 +0000, Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin? but I use it (for testing purposes) with Kabc:
2560 /usr/bin/akonadi_control 2562 akonadiserver 2569 /usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults- file=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi//mysql.conf -- datadir=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_data/ -- socket=/home/g6avk/.local/share/akonadi/db_misc/mysql.socket 2622 /usr/bin/akonadi_mailthreader_agent --identifier akonadi_mailthreader_agent 2623 /usr/bin/akonadi_vcard_resource --identifier akonadi_vcard_resource_2
Works well an not resource hungry. If you don't want/need to use it disable it in systems settings.
I've never heard of Kabc and have no idea what it is. There's no file with that name installed anywhere on my system (I checked).
kabc is the backend (as I understand it) for KAddressBook.
Anne
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Colin J Thomson - G6AVK wrote:
Well if I am not mistaken Kabc is using it, I am not sure if it is set to use Kabc initially as default, Rex, Kevin?
Actually I think Akonadi is simply set up to autostart as a service, no matter whether you actually have stuff using it or not.
I just tried @ home, akonadi started on demand for me.
-- Rex
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 03:24:00 kmadananteshwar.vbhat@gmail.com wrote:
Thanx ann Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
By now you will have read the extra information from Kevin. You can easily choose not to use akonadi. You can't avoid having mysqld installed, but it shouldn't cause any problems if you simply don't use it. If you install applications that do use it you may even not be aware that they are doing so unless you choose to routinely examine running services etc.
Anne
Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
By your comment one would think that installing mysql-server brings some great evil with it.
For a typical installation of a "desktop workstation", none of the packages in the "Servers" section needs to added. Makes sense. There's no need for so-called servers on a desktop machine.
The only exception here is CUPS if you want to print documents, but CUPS works like a typical Unix daemon. There's one central daemon for all users on the system. If CUPS would be used like KDE uses MySQL, every application had to start its own local copy of the CUPS daemon.
If MySQL is installed, this also means that self-compiled software automatically finds the MySQL installation and compiles in support for MySQL and links with MySQL libraries. This can have security implications. Sure, most software may offer switches to disable MySQL support, but how many people know that they now have a MySQL server installation on their system? During the installation of Fedora 10, most people haven't added any database packages. But now all users with KDE silently get a MySQL server installation.
No matter if KDE's new dependency on MySQL is good or bad, it would have been fair to make Fedora users aware of that significant change to their system setup (that automatically comes with the updates). Most people might not care (because they never compile anything on their own, and they maybe don't even know what a "MySQL" is ;-) but that should never be a valid reason to stop keeping those users informed who actually care.
I'm absolutely sure there wasn't any bad intention. However, there's room for improvement. ;-)
Greetings, Andreas
Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
If MySQL is installed, this also means that self-compiled software automatically finds the MySQL installation and compiles in support for MySQL and links with MySQL libraries.
Only if you have mysql-devel installed, which is not dragged in by KDE. They can't link to MySQL without the -devel package. And if you have that -devel package installed, they'll almost certainly link the client libs no matter whether you have the server installed or not. (How else would use use them with a server on a different machine?) So I don't see how having mysql-server installed changes anything there.
Kevin Kofler
Em Ter 17 Fev 2009, Patrick O'Callaghan escreveu:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 02:38 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Well, you learn something new every day. I was searching for Kabc,
not
kabc.
I didn't think yum search was case-sensitive, that may be a bug.
I didn't use yum search. To absolutely sure, I used 'locate Kabc'. Of course I should have used 'locate -i kabc'.
And in fact both 'yum search Kabc' and 'yum search kabc' turn up nothing. Which is not surprising given that Kabc (kabc) is not a package, it's part of kdepimlibs.
I still don't use it though, nor Kontact, nor Knotes, nor Kmail. So
why
am I running akonadi? I occasionally run Konqueror and Dolphin.
Would
that explain it?
I don't think so, then again I haven't noticed this akonadi as yet, if it is running, it's been quiet.
pgrep -fl akonadi
poc
I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all kdepim apps, including kabc.
[]'s Marcelo
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all kdepim apps, including kabc.
If this is F9, then you're still using kdepim 3.5, so it's no wonder you aren't actually using Akonadi yet.
I run my system (F10) as root, and Akonadi is not starting (mySql startup is failing). But still I am able to use kmail. So my doubt is, do we need Akonadi at all?
-Anoop
Kevin Kofler
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Anoop anoop.chargotra@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all kdepim apps, including kabc.
If this is F9, then you're still using kdepim 3.5, so it's no wonder you aren't actually using Akonadi yet.
I run my system (F10) as root, and Akonadi is not starting (mySql startup is failing). But still I am able to use kmail. So my doubt is, do we need Akonadi at all?
-Anoop
Kevin Kofler
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
FUD?
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 06:12:51 Jay Mistry wrote:
Linux bloat continues unabated.
I think...
that you would have to have kde-pim package installed to bloat here
agreed on bloat but considering that my Acer Aspire One is 10 Gb
Windows installation and 5 Gb Fedora 10 and I have a lot more 'stuff' installed in Fedora.
Agreed. My other laptop has to dual-boot with XP. However, I only require it for one application. I partitioned it with 8GB for XP system (no data) and to my surprise the most basic install filled it to danger point. I could certainly run a modern linux distro, with more applications, in the same space.
More importantly, in linux, if you think something does install too much, you do have a choice.
Anne
Looking at KDE 4.2, which seems to have sacrificed functionality for good looks & an enhanced (but difficult to navigate & configure interface), it seems a part of Linux seems to be moving the Windows way (re: Vista's complex operation, non-intuitive functions & the 'aero' interface) ... choice in Linux seems to be going the Redmond way (probably an overstatement, but now may be a good time for a check).
I am so sick of this stuck record. It has been refuted so many times by so many users, it's simply not worth answering any more.
Hope the next OO.org will not present us a telly-tubby look with a 'ribbon'.
And what has OOo got to do with KDE 4.2? Don't bother to answer.
Come back when you have a genuine question.
Anne
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 06:33:14 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
When I have more time I will look at it... However, I doubt that each application will spawn a new instance of mysql since that would certainly defeat the purpose of a centralized database. Looking at what little documentation I have...I am confident that it is one instance of mysql per user.
It is, as long as only Akonadi does it. But I think his point was that there may be other services or applications starting to do the same, which will then use separate databases.
Have I misunderstood this? I was under the impression that there would be just one database per user - or are you saying that every application will be seen as a new user?
Anne
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:34 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 06:33:14 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
When I have more time I will look at it... However, I doubt that each application will spawn a new instance of mysql since that would certainly defeat the purpose of a centralized database. Looking at what little documentation I have...I am confident that it is one instance of mysql per user.
It is, as long as only Akonadi does it. But I think his point was that there may be other services or applications starting to do the same, which will then use separate databases.
Have I misunderstood this? I was under the impression that there would be just one database per user - or are you saying that every application will be seen as a new user?
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them. We're also running two key managers (gnome-key and kwallet) which don't appear to talk to each other. I'm sure I could think of other examples.
Isn't this the sort of thing that Freedesktop is supposed to prevent?
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
-- Rex
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
Just a thought: what about issues on netbooks or flash based computers?
-Mauriat
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs which we may not always be aware of.
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
akonadi needed a core toolkit to use, and qt happens to fit the bill nicely. KDE apps speak akonadi'ese, not the other way around. Non-kde apps could just as well use akonadi too, which is the whole point of the exercise of making it DE-independent.
-- Rex
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Mauriat mirandam@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
Just a thought: what about issues on netbooks or flash based computers?
-Mauriat
Don't use a netbook to serve a high volume website then. MySQL only needs as much resources as is called upon of it. Using it for your address book alone will probably make no real different to your `top`
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs which we may not always be aware of.
What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
Em Qua 18 Fev 2009, Kevin Kofler escreveu:
Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all kdepim apps, including kabc.
If this is F9, then you're still using kdepim 3.5, so it's no wonder you aren't actually using Akonadi yet.
Kevin Kofler
No, I'm running F10 with KDE 4.2. It installed MySQL, but neither it nor Akonadi are running. But I didn't setup it this way, I just downloaded and installed the updates.
[]'s Marcelo
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs which we may not always be aware of.
What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping them up to date on every host that uses them.
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs which we may not always be aware of.
What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping them up to date on every host that uses them.
You lost me with this phrase....
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%"
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1" parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the others. But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind to enter an infinite loop.
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 07:54 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things without any interaction with Akonadi.
So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs which we may not always be aware of.
What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping them up to date on every host that uses them.
You lost me with this phrase....
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%"
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1" parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the others. But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind to enter an infinite loop.
I plead guilty to imprecision in the interests of rhetoric. However I'm sure you can imagine N different sets which largely but not completely overlap with each other. That's all I'm trying to say here.
poc
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
If anything at all: default accounts must be deleted or secured with passwords.
~af
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 07:54 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things > without any interaction with Akonadi. > > So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. > Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them. > > If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde dependencies (other than qt).
Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs which we may not always be aware of.
What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping them up to date on every host that uses them.
You lost me with this phrase....
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1, but a different 90%"
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1" parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the others. But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind to enter an infinite loop.
I plead guilty to imprecision in the interests of rhetoric. However I'm sure you can imagine N different sets which largely but not completely overlap with each other. That's all I'm trying to say here.
OK... That is what I thought you meant.... But I wanted to make sure of that. Can never be too sure...
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
If anything at all: default accounts must be deleted or secured with passwords.
Ok, bare with me awhile, but ... why? Or are you securing against users who turn off their firewall?
Because with a firewall up, an attacker would need to already have access to the machine... in which case having passwords on MySQL is useless.
Installing mysql-server does not open your firewall.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
If anything at all: default accounts must be deleted or secured with passwords.
Ok, bare with me awhile, but ... why? Or are you securing against users who turn off their firewall?
Because with a firewall up, an attacker would need to already have access to the machine... in which case having passwords on MySQL is useless.
Installing mysql-server does not open your firewall.
So you're suggesting that because you have a firewall it's ok to have accounts without passwords? My sense of system security is very different from your own... so maybe it's ok with you. BTW - the accounts I was referring to are those created by mysql, which are different from the system accounts. And yes, I know how installs and firewall relate.
~af
Aldo Foot wrote:
If anything at all: default accounts must be deleted or secured with passwords.
The stuff Akonadi starts up is secured to only allow access to Akonadi running as the current user. MySQL is set up to listen on a Unix socket which is only accessible by the current user, not on a TCP socket.
Kevin Kofler
Aldo Foot wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it such a big issue.
If anything at all: default accounts must be deleted or secured with passwords.
Ok, bare with me awhile, but ... why? Or are you securing against users who turn off their firewall?
I think Aldo means "bear with me". TOTALLY different connotation, there, Aldo! :-)
Because with a firewall up, an attacker would need to already have access to the machine... in which case having passwords on MySQL is useless.
Installing mysql-server does not open your firewall.
So you're suggesting that because you have a firewall it's ok to have accounts without passwords? My sense of system security is very different from your own... so maybe it's ok with you. BTW - the accounts I was referring to are those created by mysql, which are different from the system accounts. And yes, I know how installs and firewall relate.
I think we're getting away from the point of this thread. I believe it started out with "Why should KDE require mysql?" and I think the OP was sorta ticked off about dedicating N megabytes of disk space to a package he doesn't want or need in order to have a desktop environment.
I tend to agree with that. I don't use KDE myself and I don't know what KDE needs a database for in the first place. If KDE or whatever needs a database, it should check to see if an _existing_ database is installed and use it. If there's none installed, the package should install the smallest, lightest one it can OR do the storage itself (flat files, dbm, whatever).
There's a tremendous number of these "dependency" things now. I can't tell you how many times I've had to remove the stupid language packs that Firefox keeps sticking on my machine every time there's an update. I've complained. "If the packs aren't installed now, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON STUFFING THEM ON?!" The way things are going now, we're catching the "Redmond Bloat" disease. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode." - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aldo Foot wrote:
So you're suggesting that because you have a firewall it's ok to have accounts without passwords? My sense of system security is very different from your own... so maybe it's ok with you. BTW - the accounts I was referring to are those created by mysql, which are different from the system accounts. And yes, I know how installs and firewall relate.
The "account" is only accessible for the current user, the mysqld is configured to only listen on a local Unix socket only accessible to the current user. So there's no security risk whatsoever at all.
Kevin Kofler
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Aldo Foot wrote:
So you're suggesting that because you have a firewall it's ok to have accounts without passwords? My sense of system security is very different from your own... so maybe it's ok with you. BTW - the accounts I was referring to are those created by mysql, which are different from the system accounts. And yes, I know how installs and firewall relate.
The "account" is only accessible for the current user, the mysqld is configured to only listen on a local Unix socket only accessible to the current user. So there's no security risk whatsoever at all.
Kevin Kofler
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid about no passwords on any account type
As Rick pointed out this idea I introduced is not inline withe the OP's question, but I'll just throw this in:
Remember that when one installs mysql there is a warning to give a password to the root account --this is what I initially had in mind.
Just for reference: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/default-privileges.html
"Accounts with the user name root are created. These are superuser accounts that can do anything. The initial root account passwords are empty, so anyone can connect to the MySQL server as root — without a password — and be granted all privileges."
I believe the above refers to a local login and not coming from a TCP connection. I should have made the distinction earlier. My bad. Anyways... it could be problematic to have a bunch of records and have some account with full access wipe things out.
it's been a long day. ~af
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Rick Stevens ricks@nerd.com wrote:
Aldo Foot wrote:
Ok, bare with me awhile, but ... why? Or are you securing against users who turn off their firewall?
I think Aldo means "bear with me". TOTALLY different connotation, there, Aldo! :-)
LOL! that cracked me up!!! I think I'll pass!
I tend to agree with that. I don't use KDE myself and I don't know what KDE needs a database for in the first place. <snip>
I asked the same question of Firefox when I saw they resorted to mysqlite to store bookmarks. I've seen some commercial backup product that uses mysql as their dbase engine because of efficiency issues. So it seems to work for some applications. I have no idea how mysql relates to KDE though.
There's a tremendous number of these "dependency" things now. I can't tell you how many times I've had to remove the stupid language packs that Firefox keeps sticking on my machine every time there's an update. I've complained.
When I do test installs I look here and there to remove things whose names I cannot even pronounce. I cross my fingers and I have to backtrack when I see all the stuff that will be removed. More often than not I wonder "what this has to do with that?" It's truly a pain to put up with utilities I never use. But the world looks different using a programmer's pair of eyeglasses; they think in terms of reusable code (OOP) and in the process create all those dependencies we don't understand.
~af
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 18:59 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Because with a firewall up, an attacker would need to already have access to the machine...
Configuring services properly is security. A firewall is a last ditch attempt to stop fire spreading throughout a system. If you manage to bypass it, and people do (not to mention those who turn it off while trying to resolve some other problem, or configure one with gaping holes), then you can get into all the unsecurely configured services.
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 18:59 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Because with a firewall up, an attacker would need to already have access to the machine...
Configuring services properly is security. A firewall is a last ditch attempt to stop fire spreading throughout a system. If you manage to bypass it, and people do (not to mention those who turn it off while trying to resolve some other problem, or configure one with gaping holes), then you can get into all the unsecurely configured services.
Hardly a "last ditch attempt", Tim. Even in the construction trade, a firewall is an integral part of a building's design. In the network world, a firewall is just as integral along with VPNs, VLANS, passwords and other mechanisms. It's not an add on.
There are some protocols or services that can't be secured in any other way. Take NFS for example. Much of the data is flying around in cleartext. I don't want my NFS stuff visible on the big, bad Internet and a firewall prevents it. There are devices (lots of switches, routers, network-controllable power strips, etc.) that support telnet don't support something like ssh, and don't have "hosts.allow"-type of access restrictions. How do you block outside interference with those without a firewall?
Proper service configuration is crucial to security, but items such as firewalls, deep packet inspectors, HIDS, NIDS, log inspections, security updates to existing services and a host of other things are equally important. Stating that a firewall is a last ditch attempt is, well, rather naive to say the least. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do - - in it. - - -- WC. Fields - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are running into the same problem here. Why is it a problem? Not the disk space taken up by mysqld or the little bit of cpu time it takes. But the diskspace on the user's home directories. We have a shared home disk here for > 200 people, each has disk quota of 0.5 - 1 GB and akonadi's database for some users seems to be taking as much as 140 MB And that is even without them being actively using it, it's probably just an existing addressbook getting converted to mysql database or so. I have no idea how big those databases will grow over time.
So a way to disable akonadi would be very much appreciated. Well, other than removing the binary, or chmod 000 ~/local/share/akonadi which seems to be doing the trick nicely (though with some startup errors). At least, I haven't been able to find any settings regarding akonadi in the KDE settings, autostart programs, etc. Any pointers would be appreciated.
In another department, we use thin clients, getting their X services from a central RHEL server. I'm also holding my breath for waht it will do if 50 users all have theirr private mysqld running on that one server. Luckily KDE 4.2 is not in Redhat Enterprise yet, but that will just be a matter of time.
In short, ideas that may look nice for a single user on a single computer, don't scale too well to larger environments. It would be great if such additional features would be optional.
David Jansen
David Jansen wrote:
We are running into the same problem here. Why is it a problem? Not the disk space taken up by mysqld or the little bit of cpu time it takes. But the diskspace on the user's home directories. We have a shared home disk here for > 200 people, each has disk quota of 0.5 - 1 GB and akonadi's database for some users seems to be taking as much as 140 MB And that is even without them being actively using it, it's probably just an existing addressbook getting converted to mysql database or so. I have no idea how big those databases will grow over time.
We're currently working on splitting packaging so that akonadi gets installed only when really used/needed. If anyone wants to help or participate in testing that, jump onto the fedora-kde list for news.
But, that doesn't address the size issue. Wow, confirmed, my akonadi dir is ~163M. ouchie. Looks like another TODO item to look into.
-- Rex
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 07:51 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
David Jansen wrote:
We are running into the same problem here. Why is it a problem? Not the disk space taken up by mysqld or the little bit of cpu time it takes. But the diskspace on the user's home directories. We have a shared home disk here for > 200 people, each has disk quota of 0.5 - 1 GB and akonadi's database for some users seems to be taking as much as 140 MB And that is even without them being actively using it, it's probably just an existing addressbook getting converted to mysql database or so. I have no idea how big those databases will grow over time.
We're currently working on splitting packaging so that akonadi gets installed only when really used/needed. If anyone wants to help or participate in testing that, jump onto the fedora-kde list for news.
But, that doesn't address the size issue. Wow, confirmed, my akonadi dir is ~163M. ouchie. Looks like another TODO item to look into.
---- you're sort of tossing fuel on the fire but consider...
# du -sh /home/craig/.local/share/akonadi/ 144M /home/craig/.local/share/akonadi/
and I've never started kmail, kabc, kontact, kalarm, korganizer on this system ever. This is a brand new installation...no data whatsoever. Viva le mysql/innodb.
Though in the larger scheme of things, I don't mind the wasted space and since I'm not actually using it, there aren't many wasted cycles involved, save for the initial screen reporting something about starting akonodai after login...it's just the perception of a heavy footprint.
Then of course, there's some obscure error that vanishes from screen almost immediately and I cat ~/.local/akonodai/akonadiserver.error.old Control process died, committing suicide!
It's not as if this was going to be an issue wasn't known because of all of the griping that went on when Firefox implemented sqlite which meant that a typical Linux system would be using embedded versions of db4, sqlite and now mysql. One of the earliest comments in this thread bemoaned the bloat of Linux.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 07:51 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
But, that doesn't address the size issue. Wow, confirmed, my akonadi dir is ~163M. ouchie. Looks like another TODO item to look into.
you're sort of tossing fuel on the fire but consider...
# du -sh /home/craig/.local/share/akonadi/ 144M /home/craig/.local/share/akonadi/
OK, discussed with upstream kontact/akonadi, we've got their ok/blessing to shrink the default value of innodb_log_file_size=64M in ~/.local/share/akonadi/mysql.conf to something a little more palletable.
-- Rex
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:41 AM, David Jansen jansen@strw.leidenuniv.nl wrote:
We are running into the same problem here. Why is it a problem? Not the disk space taken up by mysqld or the little bit of cpu time it takes. But the diskspace on the user's home directories. We have a shared home disk here for > 200 people, each has disk quota of 0.5 - 1 GB and akonadi's database for some users seems to be taking as much as 140 MB And that is even without them being actively using it, it's probably just an existing addressbook getting converted to mysql database or so. I have no idea how big those databases will grow over time.
So a way to disable akonadi would be very much appreciated. Well, other than removing the binary, or chmod 000 ~/local/share/akonadi which seems to be doing the trick nicely (though with some startup errors). At least, I haven't been able to find any settings regarding akonadi in the KDE settings, autostart programs, etc. Any pointers would be appreciated.
In another department, we use thin clients, getting their X services from a central RHEL server. I'm also holding my breath for waht it will do if 50 users all have theirr private mysqld running on that one server. Luckily KDE 4.2 is not in Redhat Enterprise yet, but that will just be a matter of time.
In short, ideas that may look nice for a single user on a single computer, don't scale too well to larger environments. It would be great if such additional features would be optional.
David Jansen
Since you already have a centralized system, is not feasible to just have akonadi point to a central database? It seems like what it was designed for, but I don't know, I am just asking.
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:09 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 07:51 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
But, that doesn't address the size issue. Wow, confirmed, my akonadi dir is ~163M. ouchie. Looks like another TODO item to look into.
you're sort of tossing fuel on the fire but consider...
# du -sh /home/craig/.local/share/akonadi/ 144M /home/craig/.local/share/akonadi/
OK, discussed with upstream kontact/akonadi, we've got their ok/blessing to shrink the default value of innodb_log_file_size=64M in ~/.local/share/akonadi/mysql.conf to something a little more palletable.
You mean "palatable", meaning related to good taste.
Sorry :-)
poc
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Since you already have a centralized system, is not feasible to just have akonadi point to a central database? It seems like what it was designed for, but I don't know, I am just asking.
Kinda sorta, but it still needs to be a per-user thing at the moment: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Akonadi_FAQ
-- Rex
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Since you already have a centralized system, is not feasible to just have akonadi point to a central database? It seems like what it was designed for, but I don't know, I am just asking.
Kinda sorta, but it still needs to be a per-user thing at the moment: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Akonadi_FAQ
-- Rex
Well that's unfortunate. Even liberal admins aren't going to like the idea of creating 1 database per user. (referring to centralized use)
Rex Dieter wrote:
Kinda sorta, but it still needs to be a per-user thing at the moment: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Akonadi_FAQ
The Akonadi server needs to be per user, but I think the MySQL database can be shared.
Kevin Kofler
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Kinda sorta, but it still needs to be a per-user thing at the moment: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Akonadi_FAQ
The Akonadi server needs to be per user, but I think the MySQL database can be shared.
I looked at the FAQ, and I wasn't clear.
Does it need one 'database' ? Or one 'database server' ?
Mark Haney wrote:
MartÃn Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
MartÃn Marqués wrote:
2009/2/16 Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, MartÃn Marqués martin.marques@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, this is the beginning of the end of KDE
Because some portions of it require a free database engine? Seriously?
Not becuase of that. Because it's starting to use resources which are totally unnecesary. It's starting to look like the Linux Vista: Nice, but useless.
What part of KDE requires MySQL server? None that I am aware of. But then I build my own from source and not rely on these asinine package dependencies from binary packages. There are NO KDE components that /require/ MySQL. You can' specify database support, but it's not required.
Please, enlight me. How can akonadi work without a mysql instance?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi#Which_DBMS_does_Akonadi_use.3F
BTW, is there a way to disable akonadi and still work with KDE destop?
And yes akonadi does require MySWL, but KDE 4.2 does NOT require akonadi. So my point is still very valid.
I have been away for a week and during that week I upgraded my home system to KDE 4.2 and found that it installed Akonadi and now I get error messages every time I log in. I have been to busy to look at this though.
On the other hand. KDE 4.2 does require Akonadi. Try to remove it from your system. It cannot be removed without removing KDE 4.2. I just tried. :(
On my work system, Akonadi has not run. On my home system, I get error messages flash up but they disappear before I get a chance to read them. Some info box with a bunch of check marks. It needs some kind of acknowledgement before it closes.
I removed Beagle when I tried gnome and as soon as I can, I will remove Akonadi.
I have been away for a week and during that week I upgraded my home system to KDE 4.2 and found that it installed Akonadi and now I get error messages every time I log in. I have been to busy to look at this though.
On the other hand. KDE 4.2 does require Akonadi. Try to remove it from your system. It cannot be removed without removing KDE 4.2. I just tried. :(
On my work system, Akonadi has not run. On my home system, I get error messages flash up but they disappear before I get a chance to read them. Some info box with a bunch of check marks. It needs some kind of acknowledgement before it closes.
May be you are running it as 'root'.
-Anoop
I removed Beagle when I tried gnome and as soon as I can, I will remove Akonadi.
-- Robin Laing