Summary: IMM: Reduce log severity database size messages [#866]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #866
Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; default(4.6)
Development branch:
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset c3bc91d3bd60613401dabdc203e6569824d831ff
Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:23:35 +0200
IMM: Reduce log severity database size messages [#866]
The IMMND logs database size at certain threshold levels. The log
severity
for these mesages was set to WArning as early as 5000 objects. The
warning
severity should only be used when events occur that are unexpected or
potentially dangerous.
This changeset fixes so that:
For every even 1000 creates a trace message is generated. For
every even 10000 creates an INfo syslog message is generated. For every
even 100000 creates a NOtice syslog message is generated.
In addition to this, if the number of objects exceeds 350000, then:
For every even 10000 creates a WArning syslog message is generated.
For every even 100000 creates a WArning syslog message is generated.
Thus warning messages are only printed when database size exceeds the
recommended maximum size.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 40
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Tested by creating many objects in the imm and observing the syslog.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
As described in the changeset text.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Neel.
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 n n
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
