On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Subject: Re: OpenSM/osm_log API: Use symbol versions rather than polluting > > namespace > > > > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:14 -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 09:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > Nor is this feature uncontroversial. Would not support for log rotation > > > > be better? > > > > If you are just going to do log rotation, then no need to change opensm, > > just add an appropriate logrotate.d/opensm file to the distribution. > > I guess opensm will need to be signalled to close/reopen the log file though. > No? > > > But, that doesn't address what to do if you hit a full filesystem > > condition, > > Since logs are compressed this should at least alleviate that. > what do other daemons do? > > > nor how to limit the size of a log file between rotations > > again, what do other daemons do? > > > (which, as I understand it, is really only an issue because opensm can > > log so much), > > which is what this entire patch series was designed to > > address. They are two different problem spaces. > > So ... wouldn't it be better to address the real issue? > As I see it, the problem only appears if you activate opensm in the verbose > mode. And the reason to run so for a long time is only if you suspect you'll > want to debug something later, without killing opensm.
Those patches are still pending and won't be in OFED 1,1, right ? > So the ability to control verbosity at runtime There already is a way to do that. -- Hal > will be a better solution > it seems, and there are patches that do that. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general