Karen Tung wrote: > Ethan Quach wrote: >> Alok Aggarwal wrote: >>>>> - Also, since this smf service is separate from the the >>>>> auto-install smf service, >>>>> how would the output/error from this service be reported? Will it >>>>> be a separate >>>>> log file from the auto-install service? >>>> >>>> Its a separate log file. >>> >>> One of the things the AI client redesign proposes >>> is to consolidate all the installation related >>> logging into the auto-install service log. A central >>> log location like this helps users in not having to >>> look at multiple places to determine what's going on. >>> >>> It seems we're moving in the opposite direction by >>> creating another log file the user needs to keep >>> track of. >> >> As per our discussion on this at the meeting, I asked Liane >> about adding additional log file pointers to service definitions, >> and there currently isn't a proper way to do this. In a service >> definition, there are tags to define doc links and manpage >> references that do get displayed with svcs -x, but these are >> metadata of the service, and not really fit for specifying the >> log file. If we really want to be able to this, we could file an >> rfe. >> >> >> With the goal of having a single install log file in mind, we >> have a couple of options >> >> 1. define the single install log file to be a separate file, and >> have each of the SMF service log files note where the install >> log is in their content. This imposes an additional step for the >> user to -- look in smf log to get install log path, then go to >> actual install log -- but it keeps the functional separation of >> the services and provides for the proper granularity of restart >> and dependencies of the functionality we've defined. Also >> when the rfe is fulfilled, we'll be able to note the separate log >> file in the svcs -x output. >> >> 2. combine what we've functionally proposed as the manifest >> discovery service back into the auto-installer service. We >> obviously lose benefits described above for #1. >> >> >> Please provides opinions/thoughts. I would like closure on >> this by today if possible. >> >> >> thanks, >> -ethan >> > IMO, I think #1 is the better approach. It allows the separation of > functionality, and the single log file. The location of the log file > can also be documented, so, users would already know about it, > and not have to go through the SMF logs to find the path. Additionally, > since the log file will exist in a standard location, users would know > about it after referencing it after a few times anyway. > Having a separate log file also has the advantage that if we > ever want to implement any of the features as non-SMF service, the > application > can still write to that single well-known log file.
I agree, #1 seems like the best way to go here. I also like the idea of having this log in a well-known location that can be used by both SMF services and non-smf part of the install. -evan > > --Karen > > > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
