The Problem: A problem with virtual machines is the fact that one rogue DomU can destroy the performance of all the others by inappropriate resource use. CPU scheduling is designed to allow reasonable sharing of computational resources, it is unfortunately not well documented, the XenSource wiki currently doesn’t document the “credit” scheduler which is used in Debian/Etch and CentOS 5 [1]. One interesting fact is that CPU scheduling in Xen can have a significant effect on IO performance as demonstrated in the paper by Ludmila Cherkasova, Diwaker Gupta and Amin Vahdat [2]. But they only showed a factor of two performance difference (which while bad is not THAT bad). A more significant problem is managing virtual memory, when there is excessive paging performance can drop by a factor of 100 and even the most basic tasks become impossible. The design of Xen is that every DomU is allocated some physical RAM and has it’s own swap space. I have previously written about my experiments to optimise swap usage on Xen systems by using a tmpfs in the Dom0 [3]. The aim was to have every Xen DomU swap data out to a tmpfs so that if one DomU was paging heavily and the other DomUs were not paging then the paging might take place in the Dom0’s RAM and not hit disk. The experiments were not particularly successful but I would be interested in seeing further research in this area as there might be some potential to do some good. I have previously written about the issues related to swap space sizing on Linux [4]. My conclusion is that following the “twice RAM” myth will lead to systems becoming unusable due to excessive swapping in situations where they might otherwise be usable if the kernel killed some processes instead (naturally there are exceptions to my general rule due to different application memory use patterns - but I think that my general rule is a lot better than the “twice RAM” one). One thing that I didn’t consider at the time is the implications of this problem for Xen servers. If you have 10 physical machines and one starts paging excessively then you have one machine to reboot. If you have 10 Xen DomUs on a single host and one starts paging heavily then you end up with one machine that is unusable due to thrashing and nine machines that deliver very poor disk read performance - which might make them unusable too. Read performance can particularly suffer in a situation when one process or VM is writing heavily to disk due to the way that the disk queuing works, it’s not uncommon for an application to read dozens or hundreds of blocks from disk to satisfy a single trivial request from a user, if each of these block read requests has to wait for a large amount of data to be written out from the write-back cache then performance will suck badly (I have seen this in experiments on single disks and on Linux software RAID - but have not had the opportunity to do good tests on a hardware RAID array). Currently for Xen DomUs I am allocating swap spaces no larger than 512M, as anything larger than that is likely to cause excessive performance loss to the rest of the server if it is actually used. A Solution for Similar Problems: A well known optimisation technique of desktop systems is to use a separate disk for swap, in desktop machines people often use the old disk as swap after buying a new larger disk for main storage. The benefit of this is that swap use will not interfere with other disk use, for example the disk reads needed to run the “ps” and “kill” programs won’t be blocked by the memory hog that you want to kill. I believe that similar techniques can be applied to Xen servers and give even greater benefits. When a desktop machine starts paging excessively the user will eventually take a coffee break and let the machine recover, but when an Internet server such as a web server starts paging excessively the requests keep coming in and the number of active processes increases so it seems likely that using a different device for the swap will allow some processes to satisfy requests by reading data from disk while some other processes are waiting to be paged in. Applying it to Xen Servers: The first thing that needs to be considered for such a design is the importance of reliable swap. When it comes to low-end servers there is ongoing discussion about the relative merits of RAID-0 and RAID-1 for swap. The benefit of RAID-0 is performance (at least in perception - I can imagine some OS swapping algorithms that could potentially give better performance on RAID-1 and I am not aware of any research in this area). The benefit of RAID-1 is reliability. Now there are two issues in regard to reliability, one is continuity of service (EG being able to hot-swap a failed disk while the server is running), and the other is the absence of data loss. For some systems it may be acceptable to have a process SEGV (which I presume is the result if a page-in request fails) due to a dead disk (reserving the data loss protection of RAID for files). One issue related to this is the ability to regain control of a server after a problem. For example if the host OS of a machine had non-RAID swap then a disk failure could prevent a page-in of data related to sshd or some similar process and thus make it impossible to recover the machine without hardware access. But if the swap for a virtual machine was on a non-RAID disk and the host had RAID for it’s swap then the sysadmin could login to the host and reboot the DomU after creating a new swap space on a working disk. Now if you have a server with 8 or 12 disks (both of which seem to be reasonably common capacities of modern 2RU servers) and if you decide that RAID is not required for the swap space of DomUs then it would be possible to assign single disks for swap spaces for groups of virtual machines. So if one client had several virtual machines they could have them share the same single disk for the swap, so a thrashing server would only affect the performance of other VMs from the same client. One possible configuration would be a 12 disk server that has a four disk RAID-5 array for main storage and 8 single disks for swap. 8 CPU cores is common for a modern 2RU server, so it would be possible to lock 8 groups of DomUs so that they share CPUs and swap spaces. Another possibility would be to have four groups of DomUs where each group had a RAID-1 array for swap and two CPU cores. I am not sure of the aggregate performance impact of such a configuration, I suspect that a group of single disks would give better performance for swap than a single RAID array and that RAID-1 would outperform RAID-5. For a single DomU it seems most likely that using part of a large RAID array for swap space would give better performance. But the benefit in partitioning the server seems clear. An architecture where each DomU had it’s own dedicated disk for a swap space is something that I would consider a significant benefit if renting a Xen DomU. I would rather have the risk of down-time (which should be short with hot-swap disks and hardware monitoring) in the rare case of a disk failure than have bad performance regularly in the common situation of someone else’s DomU being overloaded. Failing that, having a separate RAID array for swap would be a significant benefit. If every process that isn’t being paged out could deliver full performance while one DomU was thrashing then it would be a significant benefit over the situation where any DomU can thrash and kill the file access performance of all other DomUs. A single RAID-1 array should handle all the swap space requirements for a small or medium size Xen server One thing that I have not tested is the operation of LVM when one disk goes bad. In the case of a disk with bad sectors it’s possible to move the LVs that are not affected to other disks and to remove the LV that was affected and re-create it after removing the bad disk. The case of a disk that is totally dead (IE the PV header can’t be read or written) might cause some additional complications.

• [1] http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/Scheduling


• [2] http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~dgupta/papers/per07-3sched-xen.pdf


• [3] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/05/22/xen-and-swap/


• [4] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2007/09/28/swap-space/

Share This

So it looks like the project I’ve been laboring on has been getting some attention:

Ever thought it was difficult to write software for Linux? For multiple distros? InternetNews reports that the LSB is making a push for their next release (due out later this year) that should help make all that much easier.

They even link to our project status page. Cool! Of course, good publicity invites criticism. This time, there seem to be two themes. William Pitcock seems to have the most succinct summary:

To put things simply, the LSB sucks. Here s why:

• The LSB spec depends on RPM. I mean, come on. Seriously. Why do they need to require a specific package manager? If package handling is really required, then why not create a simple package format that can be converted on demand into the system package format? Or why care about packages at all?
• The LSB spec invents things without consulting distros. Like the whole init scripts thing. But that s not as bad as depending on RPM or requiring a specific layout.

(See also Scott James Remnant.) Let’s take this one part at a time. Today’s topic: packaging. Part of William’s problem may be that he doesn’t understand the spec. The LSB doesn’t require a specific package manager, or a specific package format. It doesn’t even require that the distribution be set up using package management at all! The spec only requires that LSB-compliant software be distributed so that any LSB-compliant distribution can install it. That could be tarballs with POSIX-compliant install scripts, an LSB-compliant install binary, a shar archive, a Python script with embedded base64 binaries, whatever. One of the options allowed is an RPM package, with a number of restrictions. The restrictions are key, because they effectively define a subset of RPM that acts as, to quote William again:

…a simple package format that can be converted on demand into the system package format…

The difference being, of course, that we didn’t reinvent the wheel and create our own; we used a popular format as the basis for ours. Scott raises another concern:

While much of the LSB can be hacked into a different distribution through compatibility layers and tools, such as alien, what ISV or other vendor wants to provide a support contract against a distribution that has such kludges?

I’m not sure if he’s referring specifically to packaging or to the standard in general. As regards packaging: the reason we specify a strict subset is because we can test that subset, and we’ve tailored it to the needs of tools such as alien. The theory goes that alien isn’t a kludge when it comes to LSB packages. But, as already mentioned, if vendors aren’t comfortable with supporting RPM, they have a number of other options. As it turns out, most of them are doing just that; the feedback we’re getting from most ISVs is that packaging (whether LSB-subset RPM, full RPM, or Debian) is just not worth the effort. Coming up: part 2…

Picking up where we left off last time…

The LSB spec invents things without consulting distros. Like the whole init scripts thing. But that s not as bad as depending on RPM or requiring a specific layout.

What can be very frustrating is that we do reach out to all the major distros, and a number of the less major ones. But we don’t talk to every single person on every single distro; we can’t. We also try to follow best practices for an open project: open version control, open IRC, open mailing lists. Part of the problem may be that we also talk to independent software developers, and sometimes, distro people aren’t prepared to hear what developers are saying. So, it looks like we’re pushing things on them, like predictable directory layouts, hooks for working with the user environment, different options for software installation, and the like. We used to just listen to distros and do what they wanted. Part of the reason there’s still a lingering perception that “the LSB failed” is that software developers saw us as irrelevant. And they were right: we were irrelevant, because we only listened to the distros. So now we listen to both sides, and try to get them to talk to each other, and act as a go-between when they don’t seem able to. I had an eye-opening experience in Berlin in 2006. We talked to packaging people, and talked about the need for cooperation between package managers and third-party installer tools. A lot of people thought that was a bad idea. So we got them together with some major ISVs in Berlin, and told them to figure it out. And they did figure something out, and surprise! Communication between package managers and third-party installers became a good thing, at least if done right. And we don’t have a problem with the “done right” part, either. We made a few attempts at proposals for the communication system above, and someone has created an independent implementation. Some of those proposals came under sharp criticism. And we’re cool with that; happy, in fact, that it got attention. So if you want to find out what’s going on with us, and what terrible things we’re going to make you do in the future, check out our project plan, sign up for our mailing list, or just come by our IRC channel (irc.linuxfoundation.org, #lsb) and ask some questions. We try to be friendly and helpful.

Probably still affected by jetlag, I've decided at the end of last week while going through my Debian mailinglists backlog, to (try to) fix one RC bug per week from now on until Lenny is released. I guess I was also influenced by Neils talk about Lenny at DebConf8 :-) At that time, which it is merely nine days ago, there were 378 RC bugs open in Lenny. Today we have 428 :-(

Also I decided I will blog about this regulary, in the hope that others pick up similar procedures for them, so that we can release Lenny sometime soon. We, as a project, need to gain speed in fixing these issues, this will only happen if more people start fixing these bugs. After that, we can happily go back to adding more features! ;-)

So for now I closed (or contributed to closing) three bugs: #492299: downgraded & closed, generic bug report, users didnt provide moreinfo, #495587 (bug in atd, caused by a bug in lsb-base, suggested to forcemerge), #438885 (downgraded, as all blocking bugs for this one have been fixed).

For 475036 (removal of kernel-package requested by maintainer) I updated status in the bugreport and notified the kernel-team, that they are one of the two last users of this package in Debian. Not sure which change is more appropriate now: fix kernel-package, so that it can stay in Lenny, or change the linux-2.6 build-system.

The other package which uses kernel-package is cdfs-src, but I'm not sure we should with that package anyway, see 482075.

That's it for this week. Oh, I forgot to mention why I choose one RC bug per week: it's a goal I can fullfill. If I'd choose more, I might not manage to keep up with my plan and stop it altogether. So I choose something which I hopefully can manage over a some period of time ;-) I'm aware this is not very much, but at least something.

What's your plan to help releasing Lenny on time?

Polysms Here is my first software designed for the FreeRunner: polysms. It's a commandline tool: you pass it a polygen grammar name and a phone number, and it will send a SMS to that phone number using the polygen output for that grammar as the SMS text:

# polyrun manager 0012345678

And here is the code, that works on the http://www.freesmartphone.org dbus framework:

I took a note of the various talks I attended at DebConf, with the aim of writing a few notes about each so that I could try to explain to my work mates exactly what I get out of going. However I think a lot of the benefit is about general face to face contact with fellow DDs and random conversations that happen. Having worked from home for over 3 years I'm finding it quite nice to be back in an office with people working on the same things as me; there are conversations that you will have over a quick cup of coffee or in the corridor that you wouldn't bother typing on IRC or email or picking up the phone for. Debian is a lot like a large organisation full of telecommuters and DebConf provides a vital opportunity for us to have those "minor" conversations that prove quite useful and to remind each other what we're actually like in person. I didn't end up writing a lot of notes during the talks so these are just snippets after the fact. If I'd been more organised I'd have done a write up on a daily basis rather than leaving it all until the week after. A lot of the below is fragmented thoughts, but the longer I leave it the less relevant it gets and the more chance I forget something. It'd have been up faster if I hadn't been fighting Movable Type to try and get some sort of headings. Sunday
Introduction, Marga The "Welcome to DebConf" bit. Marga got up and talked about how at DebConf4 (Brazil) she hadn't been a DD and now she was and how it had been a life changing event. She'd thought she was to blame for DebConf8 in Argentina, but trawling mail archives had shown it was originally Mart n's idea. She hadn't realised at the start quite how much work it would be. Steve's DPL talk, Steve McIntyre The DPL welcomes us to DebConf and talks about Debian's achievements, some of the results of his team survey (the teams largely say they need more manpower. Not really a huge surprise.). NM/User Survey BOF, Paul Wise Paul emailed debian-user, debian-newmaint and various other places (I think) asking about people's experiences as a Debian user or applicant to New Maint. His final results aren't yet published and I got the impression a disappointing number of our users had replied. The NM problems these days seem to be largely down to a lack of AMs, at least according to the stats on nm.debian.org. Meet SPI board - bdale, maulkin, jimmy, michael, others A chance to meet those of the SPI board who were present. The usual "If you're involved with Debian you should seriously consider joining SPI". Some discussion about the fact that although SPI was originally mostly Debian these days other projects are making more and more use of it - OFTC, PostgreSQL and Madwifi for example. Not a huge amount of new information for me. I've been an SPI member for some time and I think they perform a vital role for Debian. They've had issues in the past but it's really good to see them overcome and more projects on board. Monday
http://hp.com/go/debian, bdale Bdale talks about the history of Debian and HP. And makes the point that HP aren't doing any of this to be "nice"; their primary responsibility is to their shareholders. Not surprising, but it's good that even with that criteria at the fore front Debian ends up a good idea for a large multinational. Managing 666 packages, Mart n Ferrari Mostly centered around the pkg-perl experience and the tools/workflow they have to help manage things. Impressive web tool (DEHS) to help track packages with new upstreams, issues or pending uploads. Quality Assurance in Lenny + 1 I can't remember a lot of this, which is a bit bad. I remember a discussion about whether we should release with orphaned packages, or if they should be removed. The argument for not removing them seemed to revolve around a theory that if they weren't buggy then what was the harm, the argument for was that if they were unmaintained and not really used than how did we actually know they weren't buggy, and was it reasonable that they potentially held up library transitions etc? Bugs in large packages Don Armstrong and ways in which the BTS can help people with lots of bugs. This (thankfully) doesn't affect me, but it was interesting to hear Don talk about his work on the BTS and his various ideas. I was sorry I'd missed his talk on SOAP access to it; I shall have to find time to watch the video. Tuesday
Debian and Ubuntu, Mark Shuttleworth The usual interaction with Debian stuff, including how we interact with our upstreams. If a bug is raised with an Ubuntu package then it might well be appropriate to raise it with Debian and upstream as well, but each set of people should be able to use their own bug reporting systems rather than having to go to a foreign system. I don't think it was actually said, but I guess the idea is that launchpad is the thing that will do this gluing together. He also talked about Ubuntu as an "experiment" rather than a fork of Debian; something that has potentially different ideas about how to do things but that these ideas may lead to things that should be fed back into Debian. The point was made that even if you consider Ubuntu a fork they've forked 9 times now; it hasn't been a case of forking once and diverging wildly since thast point. I have a few thoughts on all the whole Debian/Ubuntu stuff which I should really try to form into something coherant and post. I think it's important to take Mark's talk in the context of bdale's "Shareholders come first" point. Derivatives round table Didn't stay for most of this. Ubuntu, Debian-EDU (which I hadn't realised was a derivative rather than a team within Debian, but apparently there are various things it was much easier for them just to patch now and try to work towards a generic solution later), someone from Extramadura and someone from the Munich government Linux stuff. I'm sure I've missed someone off. tdebs/i18n This was a useful BOF. It helped that we said no to the usual video team requirement that if you want to speak you had to wait for the microphone. This works fine for a normal talk, but really impedes the flow of conversation in something like a BOF. tdebs are something that have partly come from a need of Emdebian to reduce installed package size and partly from the desire of the i18n team to be able to update package translations without having to do a full binary NMU of a package. We had some of the FTP team, the release team, the i18n team and Emdebian there and I think some progress has been made. There'd been various conversations had before this meeting which I think helped people think about the issues and objections so that we had answers by the time we all sat down together - an excellent example of the use of DebConf. DebConf9 C ceres Various bits of discussion about next year's DebConf in Extramadura. Temperature is likely to be an issue for me as they reckon it could easily get up to 40C! I'll melt! Venue sounds good; some queries regarding late night hacklabs and net connections to same, but I'm sure the networking team will sort it all out as usual. ;) DebConf10 bids Venezela and New York were both pitching. Lots of people don't want to travel to the US or think they'll have problems doing so (I hadn't realised there was such an issue for people from South America). I suspect various people will have issues with Venezela as well; I heard expressions of doubt over their political stability expressed. However I'd be happy to go to either (and preferably both! DebConf10 + 12 perhaps?) Speaking of which, what ever happened to the Sarajevo bid? If they're reading, have you considered DebConf11? Wednesday
A day trip to an Argentinian ranch and lunch was an asido. Fantastic food and a pleasant afternoon spent sitting in the sun chatting to people. That evening was the formal, but thanks to having stayed up until after 4 on Tuesday I had to wimp out and go to bed fairly early. Not until I'd seen the DPL dance though. :) Thursday
Internationalization in Debian I forget most of this other than pretty graphs from Christian regarding what's translated and what other languages we might have; e.g. you can consider South America to be covered largely by Spanish and Portuguese, or you can consider it to not be covered very much at all by the local indigenous languages. dh-make-webapp: yeah right! Mainly what I took away from this was "It'll never happen thanks to the fact that every web app author uses a different system" and that more work needs to be done on the web apps best practices document. I don't really do web apps, but having them easily installable on my systems is a good thing so I hope some standardisation within Debian comes from this. Best practises in team-maintaining packages Various team members got up to talk about work flow in their teams. Not unsurprisingly different things seem to work for different people. Predictable PRNG in the Vulnerable Debian OpenSSL Package Lucian giving his Black Hat talk about the OpenSSL issues we faced earlier this year. Some queries about automated testing and that it should have found this, which originally I agreed with until I thought about it - you'd have to have run > 65536 tests and compared all the data to find this; something like the FIPS tests against a single run wouldn't have shown any issues. Lucian wanted feedback on ensuring he was presenting the Debian side of things acceptably as well. Keysigning Run by Don Armstrong. Nothing to really remark except I think key signing attendance is dropping off after things like the Helsinki experience. Also I've now managed to get my new RSA key signed by keys other than my own (and I'll try to get sorted out to sign keys myself soon). Friday
LessWatts Intel's drive towards reducing power usage. Odd to hear such things from someone who wasn't Matthew Garrett and I think I'd heard most of it before. Debian technical policy update Sorry Manoj, I should have been paying more attention. Debian Policy is something I think is important, but I'm not enough of a nitpicker to really feel I can contribute a whole lot. Virtualisation in Debian - Present and future This was depressing. What I took away was "We had 2 forms of virtualisation in etch (Xen + vserver) and we're supporting neither for Lenny". As someone running a Xen machine this is problematic. The host does have the hardware support that would allow kvm, but I'm worried about smooth migration (it's a colo box). There was some mention of Xenner, which isn't packaged for Debian. I took a look at doing so but there are some worrying items in the TODO list (like, oh, locking to enable reliable SMP) and I've spectacularly failed to get it compiling so far. I should have another go. Emdebian update Neil Williams about where Emdebian is and waved his Balloon3 about. Some interest from the Openmoko guys and discussion about why it might be better than OpenEmbedded. And equally what it couldn't do that OpenEmbedded can manage (mainly very small installs; a minimal Emdebian install is 24MB+ and with X that goes up to 75MB+ I believe). netconf I'd never actually seen Martin talk about netconf before. Am impressive flow of control diagram. It all sounds quite complex for little benefit at present, but if he pulls it off then I can see it being a much more flexible replacement for the likes of Network Manager. Saturday
Lenny - The Road To Release Neil played with putting the heads of the release team on random images. And tried to tell us all how to behave during the release process in terms of what should and shouldn't be uploaded etc. Most of it is just common sense, but apparently everything he talked about he'd experienced. Also pointed out we were supposed to release in 3 weeks and didn't even have the appropriate kernel in testing yet so it's probably not going to happen. Colour me surprised. Sustainable Computing Low power consumption/affordable computing. Interesting points about the OLPC being used in the middle of nowhere with no chance of an Internet connection being close by compared to neighbours in large cities where people can't necessarily afford top of the line computers or individual connections - in this sort of scenario mesh networking is really viable in terms of getting people connected up. Multi winner voting Manoj needs pretty diagrams, probably drawn by Martin Krafft. ;) Semi-interesting discussion about multi-winner voting (e.g. SPI board elections) and how the current Debian voting system is completely tied to Debian's infrastructure eg the LDAP setup. Manoj would like to make it more generic so it could be used by other groups as well as for different sorts of votes in Debian.

I got several emails in reply to my previous post on representing Sudoku problems as package dependencies. Several people asked about the algorithm that aptitude uses to solve these problems. A slightly out-of-date discussion package management and the aptitude algorithm can be found at http://people.debian.org/~dburrows/model.pdf. One question was interesting enough to deserve a follow-up blog post: Wolf T. referred to the page http://norvig.com/sudoku.html and asked how long it would take aptitude aptitude to solve the hard Sudoku problems on that page. He suspected that aptitude would do basic constraint propagation and then be forced to exhaustively search all the possible solutions to the problem. In brief: the answer is that it doesn't work by default, but not for the reason he suggested, and you can make it work with a few command-line arguments. In order to try this out you'll need a new version of the Sudoku reducer that can parse the problems on that Web page: debsudoku2.py. If I do a straight conversion of one of those problems and then run it through aptitude, it goes spinning off and never comes back. But aptitude is coded to avoid exhaustive searches; otherwise it couldn't solve dependency problems in reasonable amounts of time. In this particular situation, though, aptitude is clearly performing an exhaustive search; here's one series of status outputs:

open: 5124; closed: 4993; defer: 0; conflict: 374
Resolving dependencies...
open: 10090; closed: 9942; defer: 0; conflict: 398
Resolving dependencies...
open: 14726; closed: 14888; defer: 0; conflict: 440
Resolving dependencies...

Here open is the number of partial solutions that aptitude wants to examine, and closed is the number that it's already examined. aptitude isn't making progress here and it isn't finding solutions; in fact, it's creating, on average, about two new partial solutions for every one it examines. Why is aptitude doing this? Its resolver isn't a brute-force algorithm; in fact, it looks remarkably like the Sudoku solver discussed at http://norvig.com/sudoku.html. On each step, aptitude takes a partial solution, picks one dependency, and resolves it by installing or removing a package. This is pretty much equivalent to filling in one not-filled-in cell; in fact, in the conflicts Sudoku reduction, it's exactly equivalent. There is one difference, though, and it stems from a difference in the problem domains of Sudoku and package management:

Not all dependency resolutions are created equal.

In Sudoku, any solution to the puzzle will do. Not so in package management; solving a dependency problem by removing every package on the system will produce a formally correct answer and a very unhappy user. Even results that are not utterly disastrous could be annoying to the user, so the resolver needs to somehow aim for good answers. The page on Sudoku solvers suggests sticking to whatever value you placed in a cell, unless that doesn't lead to any solutions at all. This is technically known as a depth-first search. The problem with taking this approach when resolving package dependencies is that an apparently safe choice can end up requiring undesirable actions later on (like removing large swathes of the system). For this reason, aptitude tries to strike a balance between sticking to its current line of reasoning, and abandoning it when it seems to be turning out badly (this makes it a form of best-first search). On typical Debian archives, the package relationships are simple enough that it's OK if aptitude does this from time to time; it makes the search a little more thorough (thus costly), but the ability to back out of questionable branches is very valuable. But it looks like when aptitude is applied to Sudoku puzzles, it has trouble settling on a single series of choices. It keeps thinking that the solutions are getting worse, so it backs up and tries another branch, but they don't look any better over there, so it backs up and tries another branch, and so on. The option Aptitude::ProblemResolver::StepScore sets how hard aptitude will try to stick to the same line of reasoning. Its default value is 70, which is reasonable for package archives, but turning it up to a large value such as 10000 will cause aptitude to use a straight depth-first search, just like the Sudoku page recommends:

$ aptitude -s -o 'aptitude::problemresolver::stepscore=10000' -o 'aptitude::auto-install=false' install puzzle

Setting auto-install to false is a workaround for another odd corner case/bug that happens to bite this Sudoku problem: for technical reasons, doing this lets aptitude know that it should avoid solutions that cancel the installation of puzzle. Otherwise you have to sit there telling it no for a bunch of solutions you aren't interested in. Future versions of aptitude will probably provide a way to explicitly give hints to the resolver. With these options, aptitude was able to solve the hard Sudoku puzzles that I gave it in anywhere from fifteen seconds to a minute and 47 seconds. In contrast, the straight Sudoku solver does 30 problems in a second. Why is aptitude so slow? Based on skimming debug traces and looking at the run-time behavior, I conjecture that there are several reasons:

1. The aptitude search algorithm is very heavyweight. In the case where it takes over a minute, it only actually examines about 5,000 possible solutions. I don't know exactly where all this time is going, but I do know that the resolver does a lot of work on each step, for instance to try and detect dead ends that it hasn't reached yet. This is the conflicts counter that appears while the resolver is running. This pays off tremendously in terms of allowing aptitude to skip huge amounts of work (it may be why aptitude can solve Sudoku puzzles at all!), but it means that the resolver takes a long time for each potential solution it looks at.
2. The Sudoku page suggests taking the cell with the fewest number of possible entries as the choice. I distinctly remember writing code to do this in aptitude, but it looks like I threw it out at some point or never committed it. I don't see why it should be any worse than the current approach, though (which is to pick an arbitrary dependency); maybe it just got misplaced at some point. Implementing this behavior decreased the time required to solve one puzzle from a minute and 45 seconds to just under a minute; I've committed this change to the post-lenny branch.
3. The Sudoku resolver has the advantage of being able to very quickly identify illegal moves. aptitude's resolver can learn this information, but it takes time and it can't apply Sudoku-specific optimizations. For instance, the Sudoku solver knows exactly which values can be placed in a given cell at any time. aptitude has to actually consider each of the cells that's available as a possibility and prove to itself that, e.g., 4 and 6 can't be written in the same cell at the same time. And although it can learn this information, it takes time to do so and it takes time to see whether any of the past conflicts that it remembers are present in a given solution.

As I noted above, I've already checked in one change to the resolver's behavior. It might also be worth seeing what happens with a massive increase in StepScore, so I've pegged it at 10000 on my computer to see whether the results I get are noticeably worse. The third item above -- the fact that aptitude needs to do more work to understand which packages can't be installed -- is interesting. The Sudoku solver is very proactive about this: it keeps track at all times of which cell values are legal, and updates these sets every time it transitions. In contrast, aptitude constantly re-checks all the possible moves it could make to see which ones are currently legal. I think that the resolver's speed could be boosted a little by doing the following:

1. Cache the currently legal solutions of each dependency at the time it's inserted into the queue.
2. When a new search node is generated by resolving a dependency, drop the formerly legal moves that are knocked out (for instance, by installing a different version of the same package).
3. Come up with a quick way of re-testing new conflicts (the global list of dead-ends) so that search nodes that are already in the queue can be checked against the conflicts that were added since they were queued.

These changes won't make aptitude able to solve problems that it couldn't solve before, or at least not very many of them, but they should make the resolver faster on every problem it encounters. However, I don't think I want to actually implement them. It would be tricky to confirm that the resolver got faster on real dependency problems (since it's normally almost instantaneous), the changes would make the resolver code more complex and fragile (less readable, less maintainable), and there's a real chance of breaking something. Unless there are cases where the resolver is currently too slow on real package archives that don't involve an exponential blowup, I'm going to shelve the idea for now.

I like aptitude. Okay, I just understand 10% of its features and I can’t live without apt-get (e.g. apt-get source) or apt-cache (e.g. apt-cache search) but for resolving broken dependencies it’s heaven-sent. It just seems like upgrading to Lenny using aptitude (I just learned about “U” to toggle an update - I’ve always used apt-get for that purpose) is a bad idea at this moment. Thanks to Daniel et al for this great piece of software anyway. Just if you upgrade to Lenny I’d recommend apt-get for the moment. It’s now four hours later and I managed to forcefully install slapd’s dependencies, recover the Samba LDAP schemas and get over all kinds of weird error messages. Bacula failed to upgrade the database (I swear it had worked before with dbconfig-common) so all I had was my emergency afbackup. Not to mention that I had to work on the server console because due to lack of LDAP I couldn’t fix that from my laptop. Do I need to mention that my TFT monitor at my server just died today? Don’t think so.

I took a little time today to make a new release of the Free Software Project Management HOWTO. Nearly eight years after I wrote it, much of the document is out of date or has been replaced with better, more comprehensive write-ups. In particular, I think Karl Fogel's book, Producing Open Source Software says everything insightful I say in the HOWTO, a whole lot clearly -- plus adds a lot I missed. That said, my HOWTO is short and is apparently still useful to folks. I updated it to include links to a new German translation courtesy to Robert F. Schmitt, to fix a bunch of links that time broke, and to address a few obvious mistakes that readers have pointed out. Thinking about the documents' future, I'm happy to release it under Creative Commons BY-SA in addition to GFDL and would love to help out on a wiki book project to merge a few of related efforts into a comprehensive wiki reference work.

Docking the FreeRunner into the laptop Earlier in the day, I wrote:

So yes, my laptop can now be turned into a phone charger with networking, DNS and apt cache services. I shall look into hooking that script into dbus to have it run automatically when the phone is plugged and unplugged.

It's not dbus, it's udev, and I've managed to do it. It's an udev rule:

# cat /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_openmoko_net.rules
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="net", ATTRS idVendor =="1457", ATTRS idProduct =="5122", RUN+="/root/bin/share-openmoko"
ACTION=="remove", SUBSYSTEM=="net", INTERFACE="usb0", RUN+="/root/bin/share-openmoko"

And a script:

# cat bin/share-openmoko 
#!/bin/sh
if [ "$ACTION" == "add" ]
then
    ACTION=start
fi
if [ "$ACTION" == "remove" ]
then
    ACTION=stop
fi
INTERFACE=$ INTERFACE:-"usb0" 
ACTION=$ ACTION:-"$1" 
case "$ACTION" in
    start)
        logger -t openmoko "Connected, setting up network"
        iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -s 192.168.0.200/29
        ifconfig usb0 192.168.0.200 netmask 255.255.255.248
        /etc/init.d/dnsmasq start
        echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
        ;;
    stop)
        logger -t openmoko "Disconnected, bringing down network"
        echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
        /etc/init.d/dnsmasq stop
        iptables -t nat -F POSTROUTING
        ifconfig usb0 down
        ;;
esac

The script has extra cruft that makes it double as a udev script and as a init.d style script, just because I didn't feel like abandoning the init.d style interface. However, udev handles it perfectly, so there's probably no use at all for the start/stop part. This means that the interface and all supporting services will be brought up and down when the phone is connected/disconnected, and also when the phone is suspended/resumed. Of course, more fancy things can be plugged into the script, like syncing PIM info, file systems, turning on applets in panels, mounting phone file systems and whatnot.

Unpacking the new FreeRunner I got myself a FreeRunner. Here are some notes from the first few days: Available operating systems The FreeRunner comes with the Om 2007.2 distribution: it works for basic phone things, and it has an opkg package manager that you can use to install all sort of extra software. Only issue: the SMS application was rather unstable with my SIM card. I then tried Om 2008.8, which is a major new redesign, partly based on Qtopia. It's definitely more advanced on how it looks, with smooth animations all around, but I did not manage to get the GSM part to work, because I did not manage to get it to ask for a PIN. I then tried plain Qtopia and I got what looks and feels like a properly working mobile phone. The only issue that it has is that I did not manage to make it suspend, so battery life is much shorter than it could be. Apparently, this should improve as kernel 2.6.26 reaches the phone. I kept Qtopia installed in the phone flash as a "stable" phone system. And finally, Debian. Debian is based on the freesmartphone.org software stack, which is an attempt to create a UI agnostic DBUS frontend to the hardware that supports multiple applications running on top of it. It is a young project, but it can already drive a mobile phone in a useful way. It has a demo interface that is basically a showcase of what is implemented in the DBUS frontend, but does most of the basic things you need from a mobile phone, including taking and making phone calls. And then it has Debian behind, all of it. I need to buy a bigger microsd card. Tips and tricks Flashing things

1. apt-get install dfu-util
2. Start the Freerunner bios/bootloader, by holding down Power and then pressing AUX (standard bootloader), or by holding down AUX and then pressing Power (factory, unbrickable, read only fail safe bootloader).
3. dfu-util -l shows you a list of devices it can access. If you see more than once, you need to specify in all dfu-util commands which one you want, using -d USBID. In my case, I have to always use dfu-util -d 0x1d50:0x5119
4. To flash the kernel: dfu-util -a kernel -R -D /path/to/uImage
5. To flash the root file system: dfu-util -a rootfs -R -D rootfs_filename.jffs2
6. To flash the bootloader: dfu-util -a u-boot -R -D uboot_filename.bin
7. To flash the u-boot configuration: dfu-util -a u-boot_env -D env.new

You can also download all of these things from the FreeRunner by using -U instead of -D. Networking via USB All of the distributions I tried, by default configure the USB as a gadget with ethernet over usb. You can form a lan with it using the cdc_ether module, and you will find your phone preconfigured as 192.168.0.202 expecting to find a gateway at 192.168.0.200. I made myself this script to start and stop networking with the phone:

#!/bin/sh
case "$1" in
    start)
        iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -s 192.168.0.200/29
        ifconfig usb0 192.168.0.200 netmask 255.255.255.248
        /etc/init.d/dnsmasq start
        echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
        ;;
    stop)
        echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
        /etc/init.d/dnsmasq stop
        iptables -t nat -F POSTROUTING
        ifconfig usb0 down
        ;;
esac

Besides doing masquerading, it also brings up dnsmasq so that the phone can always find a DNS together with the router. Another useful trick is to configure the phone to share the approx cache with the laptop:

deb http://192.168.0.200:9999/debian unstable main
deb http://192.168.0.200:9999/debian experimental main
deb http://pkg-fso.alioth.debian.org/debian unstable main

So yes, my laptop can now be turned into a phone charger with networking, DNS and apt cache services. I shall look into hooking that script into dbus to have it run automatically when the phone is plugged and unplugged. Changing the ringtone in Debian In case you don't like the default ringtone, this is how to change it:

1. vi /usr/share/python-support/fso-frameworkd/framework/subsystems/oeventd/receiver.py
2. look for def _play( self ):
3. change the codec in decoder = gst.element_factory_make, if needed. The list of available plugins is on the gstreamer website.
4. change the path in filesrc.set_property
5. /etc/init.d/fso-frameworkd restart and maybe /etc/init.d/zhone-session restart

Yes, the ringtone is currently hardcoded, but it does say it's a prototype after all. Or, if you prefer, it's fully configurable and the configuration can be found in /usr/share/python-support/fso-frameworkd. Configuring the bootloader You can connect to the u-boot bootloader via a serial terminal on /dev/ttyACM0. Type help and you will find that it can do a lot of things. The OpenMoko wiki has pages on the bootloader itself, its commands and the environment. The environment is the configuration of the bootloader, similar somehow to /boot/grub/menu.lst. Unlike grub, you can edit the environment from within the bootloader and then save it using the saveenv command. What I did:

1. A boot entry for Debian, with the kernel on an ext2 partition instead of fat: setenv menu_3 Boot from microSD (FAT+ext2): setenv bootargs \$ bootargs_base rootfstype=ext2 root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootdelay=5 \$ mtdparts ro\; mmcinit\; fatload mmc 1 0x32000000 \$ sd_image_name \; bootm 0x32000000
2. Stay in the bootloader until a choice has been made: setenv bootdelay -1
3. Don't power down the bootloader when idle: setenv boot_menu_timeout 99999
4. Always show the menu at boot: setenv stop_in_menu yes
5. saveenv

So now my phone dual boots, and I can choose if I want a more reliable phone now (Qtopia) or if I want to play with my future phone (Debian). Configuring ssh for two host keys on the same host Minor issue, but annoying: since both QTopia and Debian show up on 192.168.0.202, ssh will complain about changed host keys. Here is how to configure ssh to avoid the problem (in ~/.ssh/config):

Host debian
HostName 192.168.0.202
User root
HostKeyAlias debian
Host qtopia
HostName 192.168.0.202
User root
HostKeyAlias qtopia

I’ve ordered some USB charging leads for various portable devices, mainly because I’ve already got mains-USB and car-USB power adapters (they came with a bluetooth headset that charges from USB) and I agree with things like this:

“management of an individual charger for each device is becoming a pain in the backside. Since the USB power form specification is a standard, ANY charger with sufficient load capability should be able to charge ANY device.” (from USB As A Power Source)

but I’ve also heard that charging from USB is greener - or more precisely that because your computer’s power supply is running anyway, it uses less electricity to plug battery chargers onto the Universal Serial Bus than to plug in “wall-wart” DC adapters. But is this claim true? Claims from USB recharging product sellers concentrate on the obvious “less waste compared to disposable batteries” strength, although some smarter chargers cut power to charged devices - it’s not clear whether the mass-market USB battery chargers do this, but the reasons and the electronics don’t look that complicated. China (not famous for environmental protection yet) now requires USB-charging of mobile phones while a mobile phone industry body has recommended the same approach in general. However, there are concerns about whether Power over Ethernet is making networks less green, which might be true for USB if devices demand more high-power sockets and device makers don’t include intelligent control electronics (which people generally don’t want to pay for). Is USB charging greener than mains charging? I’m not sure and I haven’t found any great answers - can you? I guess in the worst case, I can try some tests with a power meter later…

I’ve just read an amusing series of blog posts about bad wiring [1]. I’ve seen my share of wiring horror in the past. There are some easy ways of minimising wiring problems which seem to never get implemented. The first thing to do is to have switches near computers. Having 48 port switches in a server room and wires going across the building causes mess and is difficult to manage. A desktop machine doesn’t need a dedicated Gig-E (or even 100baseT) connection to the network backbone. Cheap desktop switches installed on desks allow one cable to go to each group of desks (or two cables if you have separate networks for VOIP and data). If you have a large office area then a fast switch in the corner of the room connecting to desktop switches on the desks is a good way to reduce the cabling requirements. The only potential down-side is that some switches are noisy, the switches with big fans can be easily eliminated by a casual examination, but the ones that make whistling sounds from the PSU need to be tested first. The staff at your local electronics store should be very happy to open one item for inspection and plug it in if you are about to purchase a moderate number (they will usually do so even if you are buying a single item). A common objection to this is the perceived lack of reliability of desktop switches. One mitigating factor is that if a spare switch is available the people who work in the area can replace a broken switch. Another is that my observation is that misconfiguration on big expensive switches causes significantly more down-time than hardware failures on cheap switches ever could. A cheap switch that needs to be power-cycled once a month will cause little interruption to work, while a big expensive switch (which can only be configured by the “network experts” - not regular sysadmins such as me) can easily cause an hour of down-time for most of an office during peak hours. Finally the reliability of the cables themselves is also an issue, having two cables running to the local switch in every office can allow an easy replacement to fix a problem - it can be done without involving the IT department (who just make sure that both cables are connected to the switch in the server room). If there is exactly one cable running to each PC from the server room and one of the cables fails then someone’s PC will be offline for a while. In server rooms the typical size of a rack is 42RU (42 Rack Units). If using 1RU servers that means 42 Ethernet cables. A single switch can handle 48 Ethernet ports in a 1RU mount (for the more dense switches), others have 24 ports or less. So a single rack can handle 41 small servers and a switch with 48 ports (two ports to go to the upstream switch and five spare ports). If using 2RU servers a single rack could handle 20 servers and a 24port switch that has two connections to the upstream switch and two spare ports. Also it’s generally desirable to have at least two Ethernet connections to each server (public addresses and private addresses for connecting to databases and management). For 1RU servers you could have two 48 port switches and 40 servers in a rack. For 2RU servers you could have 20 servers and either two 24port switches or one 48port switch that supports VLANs (I prefer two switches - it’s more difficult to mess things up when there are two switches, if one switch fails you can login via the other switch to probe it, and it’s also cheaper). If the majority of Ethernet cables are terminated in the same rack it’s much harder for things to get messed up. Also it’s very important to leave some spare switch ports available as it’s a common occurrence for people to bring laptops into a server room to diagnose problems and you really don’t want them to unplug server A to diagnose a problem with server B… Switches should go in the middle of the rack. While it may look nicer to have the switch at the top or the bottom, that means that the server which is above or below it will have the cables for all the other switches going past it. Ideally the cables would go in neat cable runs at the side of the rack but in my experience they usually end up just dangling in front. If the patch cables are reasonably short and they only dangle across half the servers things won’t get too ugly (this is harm minimisation in server room design). The low end of network requirements is usually the home office. My approach to network design for my home office is quite different, I have no switches! I bought a bunch of dual-port Ethernet cards and now every machine that I own has at least two Ethernet ports (and some have as many as four). My main router and gateway has four ports which allows connections from all parts of my house. Then every desktop machine has at least two ports so that I can connect a laptop in any part of the house. This avoids the energy use of switches (I previously used a 24 port switch that drew 45W [2]), switches of course also make some noise and are an extra point of failure. While switches are more reliable than PCs, as I have to fix any PC that breaks anyway my overall network reliability is increased by not using switches. For connecting the machines in my home I mostly use bridging (only the Internet gateway acts as a router), I have STP enabled on all machines that have any risk of having their ports cross connected but disable it on some desktop machines with two ports (so that I can plug my EeePC in and quickly start work for small tasks).

• [1] http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/08/crazy-wiring-part-5.html


• [2] http://doc.coker.com.au/environment/computer-related-power-use/

Share This

Thanks to Anton Zinoviev, http://planet.debian.org/ is subscribed to my feed for months already, but I ve never gotten around to actually post something. So let s start in accordance with tradition! My name is Michael Schutte and I m yet another Debianist from Innsbruck, Austria. I have been around since about February, and I currently maintain kbd, python-odtwriter, and libgit-ruby. Then, I participate in the Debian/Ruby Extras team. I also contribute some QA work when time allows I even managed to fix an ugly security bug in an orphaned package once. I ll try to write down things here every once in a while (without breaking Planet too often).

Daniel, you are evil. But yeah, it does look to be quite some fun.

(This is a more detailled and hopefully better structured explanation of the topic of my Lightning Talk during Debconf) With the ever growing number of packages in our archive we need ever better methods to structure, sort, and search this collection. While projects like debtags try to improve the search in packages, my idea is about improving the way the results are displayed. There is one relation between packages that is currently never strongly featured when presenting package meta-data: the source ↔ binary relation. Usually package managers operate either on binary packages or source packages, but seldomly do they expose the fact that one is generated from the other. In the trivial case of one source package producing one binary package there is probably nothing to gain. But there are a large number of source packages where this isn't true (at the moment about 29% of all the source packages in main build more than one binary package, together producing about 61% of all binary packages). I have the idea (which so far is nothing more) that if we could present packages through their source packages that this could drastically reduce the number of packages to choose from and make some common search actions more effective. This is not by any meaning a trivial task, though, since on the other hand not all source packages necessarily produce binary packages that have much to do with each other, and even for the ones that do, the exact relationship between the binary packages can vary greatly. Also some source packages are really belonging together but are split to make maintenance easier (e.g. KDE and X.org). These splits might not necessarily make any sense to an user. Some ideas what to implement in terms of code to make it easier to let the user benefit from the fact that multiple binaries have the same source:

Add support for a Description field for source packages.

For bonus points implement automatic substvars $ source:Description , $ source:Short-Description , and $ source:Long-Description that make it trivial to reuse (parts of) that description in the descriptions of the binary packages.

Add some way to identify the "main" package built from a common source.

Identify source package usage patterns.

There are a lot of source packages that share common patterns about what they build. Example patterns include:

Application

Main package + -data package + -doc package + ...

Library

-dev package + shlib package + -doc package + ...

Application + Library

Collection of Applications

etc.

I guess many of us already look out for these patterns when searching for packages but identifying them explicetly might make this easier and allow more users to benefit from this information.

Computer security is generally defined as the following:

1. The data should remain available to those who need it.
2. The data should not be available to those who don t have the right to.

The critical software component to the first item is your well-known nightmare: the backup software. Backups are easy! In many corporate environments, here is how you ensure you have backups:

• you install the backup agent,
• you call/mail the backup guy, telling him the IP of the machine and what to backup,
• you wait for his call/mail telling you it s ok.

Isn t that cool? So little work to have all your data completely safe! Wait if you look more closely, there is something wrong here. Nowhere in this process did you specify credentials to the backup guy, nor did you add anything to identify the backup server. Or to say it otherwise, once you have installed the backup agent, the backup server has full access to your data. But you didn t even specify anywhere the IP of the backup server. So this means that anyone on the network has full access to your data. Which, while trying to make your data secure, actually brings a gaping security issue on your system. Security by nullity When you install a well-designed backup agent, like Bacula, you have to specify a password for each client and make this password known to the backup server. A simple authentication protocol ensures that only the backup server is able to backup your data. However, when you install, for example, the HP Data protector agent, it starts listening on a TCP socket and (no kidding!) binds it to a restricted shell which has access to a small list of commands. The backup server only needs to connect to this TCP socket and issue commands. While this has the great advantage of simplifying the development process of the backup server, such a software has a name: a rootkit. Several other proprietary backup software have different implementations, like RPC-based or proprietary protocols, but the basis remains the same: you connect to the TCP port, and you have a way to read absolutely any file on the system. Of course, there are so-called security options, that you can buy besides the disk agent or the nifty web interface. Yes, when you buy software that is critical for your security, the very lowest level of security that you d expect from any software not turning your box into a self-service is a paying option. In the end, what prevents your data from being available to anyone on the intarweb is the ultimate solution to everything(tm): the firewall. As people are not stupid enough to use the same backup system in the DMZ, you can t simply bounce from it after having used a hole in the lousy PHP code that is never updated. (Well, that will still work in many cases since people actually are stupid enough.) No, what makes it very fun is the backup network. The hackup network A tape library is expensive hardware, therefore you only want to buy one. However, when you have several departments or, in outsourced environments, several clients, you can t simply access to the backup agents on all these servers, because of all these evil routers and firewalls that are blocking you. The solution is trivial: use the second network card on all servers to connect to a backup network. The backup network is entirely managed by backup people who have no idea of network security, and is routed all the way down to the backup server. If you are lucky, some ACLs set up by the network guy who plugged the switch will prevent some parts of the network to access some others. In all cases, it s very likely that many people in the company (or from other companies!) have full IP access to all your private servers where sensitive data is stored. That includes access to your databases setup without a password, and of course to your highly secure backup agent. That generally also includes full IP access to the lousy maintained backup server, on which security updates are never installed. But don t worry. Your data is safe. Note: no, this is not a worst-case scenario. Such badly-designed software is widespread. Such practice is widespread in several companies I know.

Ah, Dell. Seeming inventors of the tech support pit of bureaucratic indifferences, inventors of the flamingo pink Inspiron, perpetrators of fraud in New York...

I have, for over a year now, been on a crusade trying to get them to stop sending me their Dell Home and Home Office catalog to my mailbox. It has been a bundle of fun, let me tell you.

They have a nice-sounding privacy policy. It says you can opt out of all their mailings by filling out a form online. Yeah, good luck with that. First of all, there are different forms for different departments at Dell. I've filled out them all, multiple times. They do nothing whatsoever. Perhaps they use them as lists of known-good addresses to send new advertisements to, rather than lists of people to remove. Oh well.

Now, unfortunately I feel compelled to bore you with the saga so far, involving telephone hang-ups, broken privacy policies, and the like. But there is a silver lining at the end, in which I submitted a request to the postal service asking them to block Dell from sending me any more mail, and it appears that they are very likely to violate Federal Law any day now.

I have called them about it. Dealt with the old "let me transfer you to the correct department" then hang up on me ploy. Spoken to people that have promised up and down that I'll be off their list in 30-60 days. It's always 30-60 days, isn't it? Very convenient that I can't tell for 2 months whether or not they've processed my request.

I've tried their online chat. One of my attempts went like this:

Session Started with Agent (Sneha Ranga)

Agent (Sneha Ranga): "Due to circumstances that have affected Dell Communications I am temporarily unable to pull up any information. The down time is temporary. We apologize for the inconvenience, as we value your time as a customer. Please contact us back after an hour."

Session Ended

Ah Dell, only you could reach such a pinnacle of customer service. /kicking someone out of a chat room before they have a chance to say a word.

Finally, last fall, I blogged about the situation (that's the link above). Debbie from Dell red the post and emailed me. Great, I thought. She asked for my address information and catalog information and sent me a removal confirmation:

From: Debbie@Dell.com
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:08:18 -0500
To: jgoerzen@complete.org
Subject: RE: Dell mailing list

Thank you, Mr. Goerzen, your request to have the below address
information removed from our marketing lists has been received:

[ my address here ]

We will process your request promptly. However, it may take several
weeks for some changes to take effect. If you are still receiving
catalogs after thirty (30) days feel free to email me. Sorry for any
inconvenience you may have experienced.

Thank you,
Debbie

So that was October. In December, I replied to that message, saying: "I received another mailing today, and it's been nearly 2 months since your initial message. If there's anything further you can do, I'd appreciate it." Debbie said, "I am very sorry Mr. Goerzen, I will resubmit your request." Guess how successful that was.

So in February, I manage to figure out a way to send in a support ticket without having a Dell system serial number. I wrote:

I keep getting your Dell Home and Home Office catalog. I have tried for months to get off your mailing list. I have called in, talked to people in multiple departments, who have promised to remove me from the list. I have contacted you online. NOTHING IS HELPING. This has gone on for MONTHS.

PLEASE NEVER SEND ME MAIL AGAIN, EVER, AND DO NOT RENT OR SHARE MY NAME.

My address is above.

The code on the mailing I received is: [ snipped ]

The form letter I got back said:

If you are currently receiving our catalog or mailings and would like to be removed, please visit the following web page and select the appropriate link under the "Opt-out of direct mail, phone or fax communications" heading: http://www.dell.com/OptOut

I replied, saying that form didn't work. Guess what I got back?

Thank you for signing up for Dell Email Subscriptions. Please save this email for your records.

Yes, that's right. Asking them to take me off their postal mailing lists got them to PUT ME ON their email lists. ARGH.

So they eventually manage to correctly take me off the email list, and of course promise to do the same with the postal list. This back in February.

I contacted them again in March and July, only to have a similar stupidity-laced run-in with clueless form-answer-laden Dell support reps. Each one claimed to have now, finally, and permanently removed me from the list. It never happened, and none of them lifted a finger to find out way, and no amount of begging could make them.

So, here's the good part.

Junkbusters has spent years educating people on how to get rid of unwanted mail, and documents getting a prohibitory order against the sender. It was originally designed for people that didn't want to receive obscene advertising mailings, but thanks to the happy fact that one non-adult-mailer challenged a prohibitory order all the way to the Supreme Court, you can now get prohibitory order against anyone. Yes, even Dell. (The supreme court's ruling even gave an example: you can prohibit a clothing catalog if you want.)

And last month, that's exactly what I did. The USPS sent me back a copy of the letter they sent to Dell, as well as a second page with instructions on reporting violations. Here's the letter they sent to Dell:



Somehow I get a chuckle over some Dell mail clerk trying to figure out how an 11-pound laptop is sexually provocative.

From August 25 on, it is a federal offense for Dell to send me another Home and Home Office catalog. This is a branch of criminal law, not civil law. That is, it's the maybe-go-to-jail branch of law.

How disappointed I was to receive yet another catalog from them today. If only they had waited 5 more days, I could have turned them in now.

Oh well. There's always next month's catalog. Let's just hope the clerk that received the USPS letter removed my name with a better system than everyone else at Dell uses, eh?