<div dir="ltr">All, Great to hear the interest.<div>Sandro - Maybe I can install sos-abrt package - I didn't try. However, ovirt collects only vdsm-sos report and I want to include this information there - so it was easier and simplest way to expose it </div><div>Yaniv - We don't see why not to include it in 4.1, it runs already two weeks or so in master :) and its something that we want for quite long, and its ready ... why not let others benefit from it without waiting for next major release</div><div>Dan - I will raise the need for more intensive testings. I didn't want to share the information with fedora, because I didn't think about it much.. maybe it can be nice. From my point of you, having abrt output locally and exposed by vdsm is enough for ovirt orchestration with abrt.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:38 PM Dan Kenigsberg <<a href="mailto:danken@redhat.com">danken@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <<a href="mailto:ybronhei@redhat.com" target="_blank">ybronhei@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi, I posted the new integration [1] to 4.1 -<br>
> <a href="https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:backport-abrt-intgr" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:backport-abrt-intgr</a> for review.<br>
> Abrt is a service that runs in parallel to vdsm and collect binaries and<br>
> python crashes under /var/run/tmp - to try that out you can crash a qemu<br>
> process or vdsm with signal -6 and watch the report using "abrt-cli list"<br>
> command, which its output will be reported by our sos plugin.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Yaniv Bronhaim.<br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917062" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917062</a><br>
<br>
I love to see this integration. It could provide us a lot of<br>
information about common failures.<br>
The downside is that it can also swamp us with meaningless spam.<br>
<br>
I see that the bug is destined to 4.1.3. It makes sense to me, since<br>
it would let us test it thoroughly on master. Did we do extensive<br>
testing already? Can a user disable this (per cluster? on each host?)<br>
if he does not like to share the data with Fedora?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Dan.<br>
</blockquote></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Yaniv Bronhaim.</div></div>