getting rid of all-machines.log

[Matt Rae]

Many operations teams already have a standard log collecting systems. I
think it would be best to be flexible enough to work in environments with
existing systems.

Standard ways are logging to syslog so any syslog implementation can be
used, or logging to stdout so a supervisor like djb daemontools can collect
and rotate logs.


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Gabriel Samfira <
gsamfira at cloudbasesolutions.com> wrote:

> On 14.08.2014 06:20, Ian Booth wrote:
> > Just to back up Dave's arguments - all sys admins I know would be a big
> -1 on
> > Juju doing it's own log rolling. It's a recipe for lost log files,
> missing data
> > etc. It's a mixing of responsibilities that should be handled separately.
> I am unsure how juju rotating its own logs can lead to loss of data. Any
> input on this would be appreciated.
> >
> > Just on the volume point Dave raised - we do log a lot but that's also an
> > orthogonal issue. Even if we logged less we'd still need a rolling
> mechanism.
> >
> > On 14/08/14 13:13, David Cheney wrote:
> >> Ian asked me to post my thoughts here.
> >>
> >> I am not in favour of applications rolling their own logs, I believe
> >> that applications should not know anything about their log output,
> >> they should just dump it all to stdout and another process should take
> >> care of shuttling the data, logging it, culling it, whatever.
> >>
> >> This is summarised here, http://12factor.net/logs
> >>
> >> I think our current system with rsyslog is working fine and there is
> >> no reason to remove it.
> >>
> >> The problems with all-machines.log being to large is independent of
> >> log rolling or any of these other arguments. We simply log too much.
> >> There would be no request for log rolling it all-machines.log
> >> contained only useful data.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Nate Finch <nate.finch at canonical.com>
> wrote:
> >>> So, rsyslog rotation works fine on Linux, but we can't do that on
> Windows.
> >>> If we have to do something different for Windows, I'd rather just do
> one
> >>> thing which is cross platform compatible for all our OSes, and not
> have to
> >>> support a different configuration for each OS.  Doing it all
> in-application
> >>> also insulates us from external dependencies... if some future or past
> >>> Ubuntu series (or CentOS) has a different version of rsyslog, it could
> >>> behave differently / require a different configuration, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Britton <
> david.britton at canonical.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 12:03:21PM -0400, Nate Finch wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> remote syslog and to the local file log, we wouldn't need to worry
> about
> >>>>> log rotation of the local log screwing up what gets sent to the
> remote
> >>>> Do the standard rsyslog log rotation mechanisms not function well?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Windows, what about the event log (which has remote
> >>>> viewing/aggregation capabilities built in)?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> David Britton <david.britton at canonical.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Juju-dev mailing list
> >>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140814/ddb36f46/attachment.html>