On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:12:59AM -0700, Joe Bill wrote: > The online Linux-HA documentation regarding "HA logging" > appears confusing and misleading to me on several occasions, > noticeably caused by describing the HA logging broker > (http://www.linux-ha.org/GettingStartedV2) as some syslog-like > logging demon in > http://www.linux-ha.org/GettingStartedRevisedV2 and > http://linux-ha.org/ha.cf/UseLogdDirective . > > Another source of confusion are indications in > http://linux-ha.org/ha.cf, asserting that > /logfile/debugfile/logfacility are ***deprecated*** while > ha_log() in shellfuncs, ha_logd.c and cl_log.c show this is not > the case.
I'd definitely like to see them gone. Configuring logging is unnecessarily complex. ha_logd with syslog-ng should be the preferable way of doing logging. Furthermore, the log files have an unusual format which doesn't include hostname. Switching between two different formats is a nuisance for readers. > Perhaps it is the word "deprecated" itself that is easily > misconstrued. Is "deprecated" the right word to use then when, > as in http://www.linux-ha.org/ha.cf, it is written that: > > "In case the logging daemon dies (for whatever reason), a > warning message will be logged and all messages will be written > to log files directly." This is not entirely correct. It should read "directly to files and/or directly to syslog depending on the configuration". BTW, never seen ha_logd die. > My understanding is that the writer described what he saw as > the effect ("as if these options were deprecated") instead of > describing the actual circumstances where these options have no > effect ("these options are ignored when ..."), which is then > left floating because of the strange absence of any > http://linux-ha.org/logd.cf. The documentation's lacking. However, luckily it's a wiki so anybody can fix it ;-) > Is it really a design goal to leave out the logfile and the > debugfile options from future releases ? I guess that we should discuss this. It is not easy to retire a feature which is obviously used by many. > Of course I understand what is described in > http://www.linux-ha.org/GettingStartedV2 : > > "Choice of Logging Package It is recommended that syslog-ng be > used for logging in preference to syslog. Given the > capabilities of Heartbeat version 2 and the increased cluster > sizes, one can expect an increased volume of logging to occur. > It has been the experience of the development team that syslog > loses log messages more frequently than syslog-ng." > > The question is "Is log-to-disk really strongly discouraged and > unwanted by the developpers because they intent to make > log-to-disk disappear very soon ?" I can't recall any discussion about it, perhaps there was some before. > Or "Is log-to-disk just a performance limited alternative to > use_logd, and it is up to the user to decide whether he wants > to use it or not ? In which case the logfile/debugfile options > are far from being deprecated and the documentation needs to be > corrected. Since v2 is way more demanding, i.e. much more verbose than v1, I'd definitely recommend using ha_logd. ha_logd may write to files, but again I'd prefer syslog-ng. > Or but is sll ok to Or? Thanks, Dejan > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
