[vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
Hi, we discussed the right amount of logging with Nir and Francesco while reviewing my patches. Francesco was against one DEBUG log message that could potentially flood the logs. But the message in question was important for me and SLA, because it was logging the VDSM changes in response to MoM command. Since DEBUG really is meant to be used for debug messages, I have one proposal: 1) Change the default log level of vdsm.log to INFO 2) Log (only) DEBUG messages to a separate file vdsm-debug.log 3) Make the vdsm-debug.log rotate faster (every hour, keep only last couple of hours?) so it does not grow too much This way the customer would be able to monitor INFO logs (much smaller) without all the noise and we would be able to collect the DEBUG part in case something happens. What do you think? -- Martin Sivák msivak@redhat.com Red Hat Czech RHEV-M SLA / Brno, CZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Sivak" <msivak@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 12:09:14 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
Hi,
we discussed the right amount of logging with Nir and Francesco while reviewing my patches. Francesco was against one DEBUG log message that could potentially flood the logs. But the message in question was important for me and SLA, because it was logging the VDSM changes in response to MoM command.
Since DEBUG really is meant to be used for debug messages, I have one proposal:
1) Change the default log level of vdsm.log to INFO 2) Log (only) DEBUG messages to a separate file vdsm-debug.log 3) Make the vdsm-debug.log rotate faster (every hour, keep only last couple of hours?) so it does not grow too much
This way the customer would be able to monitor INFO logs (much smaller) without all the noise and we would be able to collect the DEBUG part in case something happens.
What do you think?
+1, because it is an improvement with respect to our current situation. but we need to carefully pick the debug log rotation frequency. I also think that we probably need (myself first on the line) a bit more thoughtful about what we log and on which level. I believe that log.debug() is used a bit too leniently. Again, I am the first in the line of guilty. Bests, -- Francesco Romani RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D Phone: 8261328 IRC: fromani
Am 10.07.2014 12:09, schrieb Martin Sivak:
Hi,
we discussed the right amount of logging with Nir and Francesco while reviewing my patches. Francesco was against one DEBUG log message that could potentially flood the logs. But the message in question was important for me and SLA, because it was logging the VDSM changes in response to MoM command.
Since DEBUG really is meant to be used for debug messages, I have one proposal:
1) Change the default log level of vdsm.log to INFO 2) Log (only) DEBUG messages to a separate file vdsm-debug.log 3) Make the vdsm-debug.log rotate faster (every hour, keep only last couple of hours?) so it does not grow too much
This way the customer would be able to monitor INFO logs (much smaller) without all the noise and we would be able to collect the DEBUG part in case something happens.
What do you think?
From a user perspective I can just encourage you to do so! Log spam and finding relevant log messages are one of the hugest drawbacks when using ovirt. Since now all replies regarding this topic ended like this: "it is not recommended to lower the default log levels because you might need this information to debug problems". But I beg to differ: If this is a production ready software (after all it is sold somewhere) you really should not need a log level of "debug" in a productive environment. This flag should be for development and test setups, and major breakage should be fixed there (either in the setup, or in the code) and when shipped, everyone should be comfortable with a loglevel of info or warning. My conclusion was until now: the ovirt devs don't trust their own implementations to be robust enough and thus require debug flags. I wonder when all those lurking bugs get fixed that prevent the log level to get changed to "info" or "warning". I have the feeling that the devs always want a "debug" log level, no matter how much the product has matured. Please correct me where I'm wrong, or share some insight why these log levels are used and when it will be possible to lower log levels. running ovirt, from a log perspective, is like being forced to run "ssh" always with option "-vvvvvv". It makes debugging sometimes really hard, because the log is spammed with so many messages which endusers(admins) do not even understand that you don't find what you're actually looking for and you need to waste time to filter the logs to output what you searched for. I'm sorry for this long rant, but I really don't understand the current reasoning for this mess, as a user. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Sivak" <msivak@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:09:14 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
Hi,
we discussed the right amount of logging with Nir and Francesco while reviewing my patches. Francesco was against one DEBUG log message that could potentially flood the logs. But the message in question was important for me and SLA, because it was logging the VDSM changes in response to MoM command.
Since DEBUG really is meant to be used for debug messages, I have one proposal:
1) Change the default log level of vdsm.log to INFO
Not good enough - our log are full or tracebacks logged in error and warning levels, which are not helpful to the administrator. So this will create log that is not useful for anything.
2) Log (only) DEBUG messages to a separate file vdsm-debug.log
The debug log should include *all* log levels, basically being the same as the current vdsm log. When you need the logs, you want all the information in the same file.
3) Make the vdsm-debug.log rotate faster (every hour, keep only last couple of hours?) so it does not grow too much
I just debugged a problem in production, where the mailbox stopped working 86 logs ago - so having only couple of hours is too little. However when using proper logging, This issue should be clear even in info log level, which show error, warnings, and info message such as mailbox stopping.
This way the customer would be able to monitor INFO logs (much smaller) without all the noise and we would be able to collect the DEBUG part in case something happens.
I think you got it right with the dual log approach. We should have two logs: 1. Admin log (events.log?) This log should show important events and errors, but it should not contain any tracebacks, thread name, file names etc. Basically, something like the events log in the engine. If we take storage for example, this log can contain storage domain state change, or configuration changes triggered by the engine, or events like disk that becoming too full. 2. Developer log (vdsm.log) There is lot of work to to here: - Disable library logs - we have lot of infrastructure code that log useless messages. This code should be verified by tests, not by looking at the logs. - Removing junk log messages: - new ioprocess logs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1114908 - new jsonrpc logs: same issue - no bug yet - Adding useful info like VDSM changes in response to MoM command. I did not look at the patch, but if vdsm changes state, it must be logged - Improving log format http://gerrit.ovirt.org/28869 - Removing duplicate errors/tracebacks for same error, caused by code that does try: something() except: log.error('something failed...') raise Should be: something() And let the upper level handle the failure, logging a trackback. Or: try: something() Except LowLevelError: raise FlowError("description...") FlowError can log a traceback of both errors by using sys.exec_info. See http://hg.moinmo.in/moin/1.9/file/274a7f675261/MoinMoin/error.py - Disabling this log by default? Only if an admin can easily enable or disable the log, ideally from the ui. So for example, when flow fails, the event log will contain the a single error message related to the flow, while the debug log will contains the same error message with a traceback and useful debugging messages during the flow. Lets make this a feature for 3.6? Nir
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:15:23AM -0400, Nir Soffer wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Sivak" <msivak@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:09:14 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
Hi,
we discussed the right amount of logging with Nir and Francesco while reviewing my patches. Francesco was against one DEBUG log message that could potentially flood the logs. But the message in question was important for me and SLA, because it was logging the VDSM changes in response to MoM command.
Since DEBUG really is meant to be used for debug messages, I have one proposal:
1) Change the default log level of vdsm.log to INFO
Not good enough - our log are full or tracebacks logged in error and warning levels, which are not helpful to the administrator.
So this will create log that is not useful for anything.
2) Log (only) DEBUG messages to a separate file vdsm-debug.log
The debug log should include *all* log levels, basically being the same as the current vdsm log. When you need the logs, you want all the information in the same file.
3) Make the vdsm-debug.log rotate faster (every hour, keep only last couple of hours?) so it does not grow too much
I just debugged a problem in production, where the mailbox stopped working 86 logs ago - so having only couple of hours is too little.
However when using proper logging, This issue should be clear even in info log level, which show error, warnings, and info message such as mailbox stopping.
This way the customer would be able to monitor INFO logs (much smaller) without all the noise and we would be able to collect the DEBUG part in case something happens.
I think you got it right with the dual log approach. We should have two logs:
1. Admin log (events.log?)
This log should show important events and errors, but it should not contain any tracebacks, thread name, file names etc. Basically, something like the events log in the engine.
If we take storage for example, this log can contain storage domain state change, or configuration changes triggered by the engine, or events like disk that becoming too full.
I have recently introduced a connectivity.log, that tracks changes in host network devices. Adding parallel logs for other important admin-understandable changes makes sense. I'd be happy to hear which bits of information do oVirt admins wish to see in this "events.log".
2. Developer log (vdsm.log)
There is lot of work to to here:
- Disable library logs - we have lot of infrastructure code that log useless messages. This code should be verified by tests, not by looking at the logs.
- Removing junk log messages: - new ioprocess logs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1114908 - new jsonrpc logs: same issue - no bug yet
- Adding useful info like VDSM changes in response to MoM command. I did not look at the patch, but if vdsm changes state, it must be logged
- Improving log format http://gerrit.ovirt.org/28869
The only problem is to agree which format is better. I personally like condensed format, that is possibly machine-readable. Spaces, "in function" and repeating module name and its full path, are suboptimal imo.
- Removing duplicate errors/tracebacks for same error, caused by code that does
try: something() except: log.error('something failed...') raise
+1, I hate those.
Should be:
something()
And let the upper level handle the failure, logging a trackback.
Or:
try: something() Except LowLevelError: raise FlowError("description...")
FlowError can log a traceback of both errors by using sys.exec_info. See http://hg.moinmo.in/moin/1.9/file/274a7f675261/MoinMoin/error.py
- Disabling this log by default? Only if an admin can easily enable or disable the log, ideally from the ui.
It all too often that a user comes up with a bug or a question. Seeing his logs usually gives a good hint regarding the solution, or at least who is to blame. It is important to me to keep this tool handy.
So for example, when flow fails, the event log will contain the a single error message related to the flow, while the debug log will contains the same error message with a traceback and useful debugging messages during the flow.
Lets make this a feature for 3.6?
Vdsm has a setLogLevel; it must have rotton out of disuse. But I'd love to see an Engine option for "cluster debug level", that is overridable per-host. Each admin should decide what does they care more about: debugablility by developers, or the bliss of quiet logs. Dan.
On Jul 10, 2014, at 18:07 , Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:15:23AM -0400, Nir Soffer wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Sivak" <msivak@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:09:14 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
Hi,
we discussed the right amount of logging with Nir and Francesco while reviewing my patches. Francesco was against one DEBUG log message that could potentially flood the logs. But the message in question was important for me and SLA, because it was logging the VDSM changes in response to MoM command.
well, that's an easy decision…if it can flood, you have to fix it so it doesn't;-) also likely the DEBUG level is not right if you deem it's important
Since DEBUG really is meant to be used for debug messages, I have one proposal:
1) Change the default log level of vdsm.log to INFO
Not good enough - our log are full or tracebacks logged in error and warning levels, which are not helpful to the administrator.
So this will create log that is not useful for anything.
2) Log (only) DEBUG messages to a separate file vdsm-debug.log
The debug log should include *all* log levels, basically being the same as the current vdsm log. When you need the logs, you want all the information in the same file.
3) Make the vdsm-debug.log rotate faster (every hour, keep only last couple of hours?) so it does not grow too much
I just debugged a problem in production, where the mailbox stopped working 86 logs ago - so having only couple of hours is too little.
exactly. Let's also not forget the omnipresent ENOSPACE on node…due to logs If it's debug, it should be likely triggered only while troubleshooting. We should have a run-time setting for debug levels
However when using proper logging, This issue should be clear even in info log level, which show error, warnings, and info message such as mailbox stopping.
This way the customer would be able to monitor INFO logs (much smaller) without all the noise and we would be able to collect the DEBUG part in case something happens.
I think you got it right with the dual log approach. We should have two logs:
1. Admin log (events.log?)
This log should show important events and errors, but it should not contain any tracebacks, thread name, file names etc. Basically, something like the events log in the engine.
If we take storage for example, this log can contain storage domain state change, or configuration changes triggered by the engine, or events like disk that becoming too full.
I have recently introduced a connectivity.log, that tracks changes in host network devices. Adding parallel logs for other important admin-understandable changes makes sense.
I wonder if this is the right approach…IMHO it's not, as you have to now take care of the additional file in the context of your code. It's easy to diverge then. Why not follow the syslog-like way with config, splitting/limiting files based on e.g. subpackage prefix, etc… I'm sure it was brought up many times before….why don't we just send it to syslog?:)
I'd be happy to hear which bits of information do oVirt admins wish to see in this "events.log".
2. Developer log (vdsm.log)
There is lot of work to to here:
- Disable library logs - we have lot of infrastructure code that log useless messages. This code should be verified by tests, not by looking at the logs.
- Removing junk log messages: - new ioprocess logs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1114908 - new jsonrpc logs: same issue - no bug yet
- Adding useful info like VDSM changes in response to MoM command. I did not look at the patch, but if vdsm changes state, it must be logged
- Improving log format http://gerrit.ovirt.org/28869
The only problem is to agree which format is better. I personally like condensed format, that is possibly machine-readable. Spaces, "in function" and repeating module name and its full path, are suboptimal imo.
+1 although that was also brought up before IIRC….journald?:)
- Removing duplicate errors/tracebacks for same error, caused by code that does
try: something() except: log.error('something failed...') raise
+1, I hate those.
Should be:
something()
And let the upper level handle the failure, logging a trackback.
Or:
try: something() Except LowLevelError: raise FlowError("description...")
FlowError can log a traceback of both errors by using sys.exec_info. See http://hg.moinmo.in/moin/1.9/file/274a7f675261/MoinMoin/error.py
- Disabling this log by default? Only if an admin can easily enable or disable the log, ideally from the ui.
It all too often that a user comes up with a bug or a question. Seeing his logs usually gives a good hint regarding the solution, or at least who is to blame. It is important to me to keep this tool handy.
So for example, when flow fails, the event log will contain the a single error message related to the flow, while the debug log will contains the same error message with a traceback and useful debugging messages during the flow.
Lets make this a feature for 3.6?
Vdsm has a setLogLevel; it must have rotton out of disuse. But I'd love to see an Engine option for "cluster debug level", that is overridable per-host. Each admin should decide what does they care more about: debugablility by developers, or the bliss of quiet logs.
per host sounds good for vdsm (btw engine suffers from the same) I wouldn't bother with UI though….I kind of never understood the tools which have "enable debug" checkbox in UI but then you anyway have no idea what is it now creating, what's the impact on the system, where to look for it. I think debug should remain a purely troubleshooting measure, hence requiring you to log to host and do something, look/analyze/copy the big dump of info…and then turn it back. High debug levels typically bring some caveats like less performance…it shouldn't be something I can blindly check and forgot about it in UI. Thanks, michal
Dan.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Am 11.07.2014 09:13, schrieb Michal Skrivanek:
I think debug should remain a purely troubleshooting measure, hence requiring you to log to host and do something, look/analyze/copy the big dump of info…and then turn it back. High debug levels typically bring some caveats like less performance…it shouldn't be something I can blindly check and forgot about it in UI. You are so right, but yet "debug" is the default shipped log level.
But it's great to see some improvement and discussion around this topic. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen
On Jul 11, 2014, at 09:24 , Sven Kieske <S.Kieske@mittwald.de> wrote:
Am 11.07.2014 09:13, schrieb Michal Skrivanek:
I think debug should remain a purely troubleshooting measure, hence requiring you to log to host and do something, look/analyze/copy the big dump of info…and then turn it back. High debug levels typically bring some caveats like less performance…it shouldn't be something I can blindly check and forgot about it in UI. You are so right, but yet "debug" is the default shipped log level.
The big issue right now is that there's no magic solution like "just disable it and make it warn by default". We really do have to revisit what do we actually want to show and change the level accordingly. Right now it's too much of a mess, important stuff is "debug" (as Martin originally hinted even new things are like that:-), whereas error/warns can flood way too much. I think what Dan did in networking with the separate file is a good improvement…as it make them/us realize what is important. Though I think we should do it by levels and/or prefixes We also miss some more flexibility with the current tools (not sure if there are even any), to be able to dynamically change the levels, filter non-related stuff before it gets written…
But it's great to see some improvement and discussion around this topic.
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards
Sven Kieske
Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:13:27AM +0200, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
I have recently introduced a connectivity.log, that tracks changes in host network devices. Adding parallel logs for other important admin-understandable changes makes sense.
I wonder if this is the right approach…IMHO it's not, as you have to now take care of the additional file in the context of your code. It's easy to diverge then. Why not follow the syslog-like way with config, splitting/limiting files based on e.g. subpackage prefix, etc…
I am not sure what you suggest. In my implementation, a piece of the code that wants to log a connectivity-related issue, it asks for logging.getLogger('connectivity'). The whole idea is that the reader of this code is not interested on the subpackage or module emitting the error. He just wants to know that it affects connectivity. In that, it is similar to Sven and Nir's request - a log file that is more inclining to the admin, and less to the developer.
I'm sure it was brought up many times before….why don't we just send it to syslog?:)
IIRC it was striked down since just because it was complex to configure syslog.conf and/or rsyslog.conf properly. Doing the de-multiplexing of log messages in /etc/vdsm/logger.conf was much easier. I think that nowadays, we could just drop a file onto /etc/rsyslog.d/. <snip>
Vdsm has a setLogLevel; it must have rotton out of disuse. But I'd love to see an Engine option for "cluster debug level", that is overridable per-host. Each admin should decide what does they care more about: debugablility by developers, or the bliss of quiet logs.
per host sounds good for vdsm (btw engine suffers from the same) I wouldn't bother with UI though….I kind of never understood the tools which have "enable debug" checkbox in UI but then you anyway have no idea what is it now creating, what's the impact on the system, where to look for it. I think debug should remain a purely troubleshooting measure, hence requiring you to log to host and do something, look/analyze/copy the big dump of info…and then turn it back. High debug levels typically bring some caveats like less performance…it shouldn't be something I can blindly check and forgot about it in UI.
I'm thinking about the support engineer. He needs as much logs as the user can give him. By moving away of default DEBUG level, we are taking one of his most important tools. The least we can do is to make it easy on him to re-enable it.
Please keep in mind to also support other syslog daemons than rsyslog :) Thanks! Am 11.07.2014 13:22, schrieb Dan Kenigsberg:
I think that nowadays, we could just drop a file onto /etc/rsyslog.d/.
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken@redhat.com> To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:22:44 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:13:27AM +0200, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
I have recently introduced a connectivity.log, that tracks changes in host network devices. Adding parallel logs for other important admin-understandable changes makes sense.
I wonder if this is the right approach…IMHO it's not, as you have to now take care of the additional file in the context of your code. It's easy to diverge then. Why not follow the syslog-like way with config, splitting/limiting files based on e.g. subpackage prefix, etc…
I am not sure what you suggest. In my implementation, a piece of the code that wants to log a connectivity-related issue, it asks for logging.getLogger('connectivity'). The whole idea is that the reader of this code is not interested on the subpackage or module emitting the error. He just wants to know that it affects connectivity. In that, it is similar to Sven and Nir's request - a log file that is more inclining to the admin, and less to the developer.
I'm sure it was brought up many times before….why don't we just send it to syslog?:)
IIRC it was striked down since just because it was complex to configure syslog.conf and/or rsyslog.conf properly. Doing the de-multiplexing of log messages in /etc/vdsm/logger.conf was much easier.
I think that nowadays, we could just drop a file onto /etc/rsyslog.d/.
I'd go for this.
<snip>
Vdsm has a setLogLevel; it must have rotton out of disuse. But I'd love to see an Engine option for "cluster debug level", that is overridable per-host. Each admin should decide what does they care more about: debugablility by developers, or the bliss of quiet logs.
per host sounds good for vdsm (btw engine suffers from the same) I wouldn't bother with UI though….I kind of never understood the tools which have "enable debug" checkbox in UI but then you anyway have no idea what is it now creating, what's the impact on the system, where to look for it. I think debug should remain a purely troubleshooting measure, hence requiring you to log to host and do something, look/analyze/copy the big dump of info…and then turn it back. High debug levels typically bring some caveats like less performance…it shouldn't be something I can blindly check and forgot about it in UI.
I'm thinking about the support engineer. He needs as much logs as the user can give him. By moving away of default DEBUG level, we are taking one of his most important tools. The least we can do is to make it easy on him to re-enable it.
I'd have either a verb for vdsmd/supervdsmd or a signal that can be sent via vdsClient to a running daemon to modify the logging level.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Jul 11, 2014, at 13:29 , Antoni Segura Puimedon <asegurap@redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken@redhat.com> To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:22:44 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] logging levels and noise in the log
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:13:27AM +0200, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
I have recently introduced a connectivity.log, that tracks changes in host network devices. Adding parallel logs for other important admin-understandable changes makes sense.
I wonder if this is the right approach…IMHO it's not, as you have to now take care of the additional file in the context of your code. It's easy to diverge then. Why not follow the syslog-like way with config, splitting/limiting files based on e.g. subpackage prefix, etc…
I am not sure what you suggest. In my implementation, a piece of the code that wants to log a connectivity-related issue, it asks for logging.getLogger('connectivity'). The whole idea is that the reader of this code is not interested on the subpackage or module emitting the error. He just wants to know that it affects connectivity. In that, it is similar to Sven and Nir's request - a log file that is more inclining to the admin, and less to the developer.
I'm not opposed to splitting stuff, only to diverge to different files right away. I'd prefer all info flows the same way, then do de-multiplexing, to different files or the same, whatever is required. As sometimes this admin guy's logs are good enough, but sometimes you need the context so it's better to have it in the same place (i.e. exactly the same in a different/root log file) It's fine you did it once, it's not fine if everyone does that and we end up with 30 distributed files per group and per problem…without a central location how to redirect things or without a holistic detailed view for real debugging. anyway, it's a very minor point, nevermind...
I'm sure it was brought up many times before….why don't we just send it to syslog?:)
IIRC it was striked down since just because it was complex to configure syslog.conf and/or rsyslog.conf properly. Doing the de-multiplexing of log messages in /etc/vdsm/logger.conf was much easier.
I think that nowadays, we could just drop a file onto /etc/rsyslog.d/.
I'd go for this.
<snip>
Vdsm has a setLogLevel; it must have rotton out of disuse. But I'd love to see an Engine option for "cluster debug level", that is overridable per-host. Each admin should decide what does they care more about: debugablility by developers, or the bliss of quiet logs.
per host sounds good for vdsm (btw engine suffers from the same) I wouldn't bother with UI though….I kind of never understood the tools which have "enable debug" checkbox in UI but then you anyway have no idea what is it now creating, what's the impact on the system, where to look for it. I think debug should remain a purely troubleshooting measure, hence requiring you to log to host and do something, look/analyze/copy the big dump of info…and then turn it back. High debug levels typically bring some caveats like less performance…it shouldn't be something I can blindly check and forgot about it in UI.
I'm thinking about the support engineer. He needs as much logs as the user can give him. By moving away of default DEBUG level, we are taking one of his most important tools. The least we can do is to make it easy on him to re-enable it.
I'd have either a verb for vdsmd/supervdsmd or a signal that can be sent via vdsClient to a running daemon to modify the logging level.
I think we'd benefit from some simple set of wrappers/scripts to make it comfortable Comfortable for support engineers too. I just still want them to at least log on the damn box, that's the least you can do…:) (seriously, I'm concerned about too much of an ignorance if it's too simple. Enabling debug (as well as running logcollector) is a dangerous thing to do) Thanks, michal
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
participants (7)
-
Antoni Segura Puimedon -
Dan Kenigsberg -
Francesco Romani -
Martin Sivak -
Michal Skrivanek -
Nir Soffer -
Sven Kieske