Re: [Nut-upsuser] Spammy notification-tech diagnostic message
Vojtěch Hurčík via Nut-upsuser writes: > Thanks for the reply, it's only reported once per spawned process and > what you say makes perfect sense in this light. A configuration toggle > or environment variable also seems like a good idea, but I'm sure I or > we can also live with the message being reported once per process as > it currently is... looking forward to the stable release & thanks for > everything! If it's only once per process, I lean lean to one of don't make it configurable and just phrase it so it isn't scary or at cmake time, specify the integration with system management stuff and then get it right. and overall the second seems nicer but ENOPATCH. ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] Spammy notification-tech diagnostic message
Thanks for the reply, it's only reported once per spawned process and what you
say makes perfect sense in this light. A configuration toggle or environment
variable also seems like a good idea, but I'm sure I or we can also live with
the message being reported once per process as it currently is... looking
forward to the stable release & thanks for everything!
VH
--- Original Message ---
On Sunday, October 29th, 2023 at 16:22, Jim Klimov
wrote:
> Thanks for your concern.
>
> Technically, it is not about just systemd - other systems where launched
> processes that have ways to interact with some OS framework (like SMF,
> upstart, Windows services, docker/kubernetes, whatever) *and* such framework
> offers ways for services to inform they have started and e.g. dependencies
> can begin starting, with better precision than "we have forked off an init
> script and assume that this instant its service is fully ready".
>
> One bit that worries me in your report is "I am repeatedly getting these
> messages in my syslog" - does it mean you get them more often than once per
> uptime of each daemon (upsd, upsmon, driver)? Or that you reboot so often
> that the "noise" gets your eyes sore? :)
>
> I did initially have the opposite feedback in the beginning, about not having
> those notifications working and services set up for notification-based
> integration getting restarted by their OS framework because their startup
> allegedly timed out.
>
> I think this sort of behaviors with OS-dependent variations was supposed to
> become managed by envvars (e.g. offering a toggle to not make noise easy to
> set in packaged init-scripts etc.) but it seems that for this particular case
> one was not merged. Something similar was discussed about NUT daemon banner
> and a few other lines emitted at startup, which some people see as important
> post-mortem tool when inspecting logs or console dumps, and others treat as
> noise ("unless there's an error, I want to see nothing") - and frankly both
> stances have their merits for different audiences.
>
> Jim Klimov
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 2:45 PM Vojtěch Hurčík via Nut-upsuser
> wrote:
>
>> Hello friends!
>>
>> With the upcoming NUT release there is one thing I would like to ask:
>>
>> -
>>
>> no notification tech defined, will not spam more about
>>
>> I am repeatedly getting these messages in my syslog more recently because I
>> do not have systemd available to me on my distribution and also do not want
>> to use it.
>>
>> Maybe the debug level for such messages could be raised to 1 instead, as
>> they still seem a bit too spammy for something us, who don't use the
>> systemd, already know. At least then we would have a way to suppress them...
>>
>> Vojtěch
>> ___
>> Nut-upsuser mailing list
>> Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
>> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser___
Nut-upsuser mailing list
Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] Spammy notification-tech diagnostic message
Would this help?
https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/2136
Jim
On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 5:04 PM Vojtěch Hurčík wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, it's only reported once per spawned process and what
> you say makes perfect sense in this light. A configuration toggle or
> environment variable also seems like a good idea, but I'm sure I or we can
> also live with the message being reported once per process as it currently
> is... looking forward to the stable release & thanks for everything!
>
> VH
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Sunday, October 29th, 2023 at 16:22, Jim Klimov <
> jimklimov+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your concern.
>
> Technically, it is not about just systemd - other systems where launched
> processes that have ways to interact with some OS framework (like SMF,
> upstart, Windows services, docker/kubernetes, whatever) *and* such
> framework offers ways for services to inform they have started and e.g.
> dependencies can begin starting, with better precision than "we have forked
> off an init script and assume that this instant its service is fully ready".
>
> One bit that worries me in your report is "I am repeatedly getting these
> messages in my *syslog*" - does it mean you get them more often than once
> per uptime of each daemon (upsd, upsmon, driver)? Or that you reboot so
> often that the "noise" gets your eyes sore? :)
>
> I did initially have the opposite feedback in the beginning, about not
> having those notifications working and services set up for
> notification-based integration getting restarted by their OS framework
> because their startup allegedly timed out.
>
> I think this sort of behaviors with OS-dependent variations was supposed
> to become managed by envvars (e.g. offering a toggle to not make noise easy
> to set in packaged init-scripts etc.) but it seems that for this particular
> case one was not merged. Something similar was discussed about NUT daemon
> banner and a few other lines emitted at startup, which some people see as
> important post-mortem tool when inspecting logs or console dumps, and
> others treat as noise ("unless there's an error, I want to see nothing") -
> and frankly both stances have their merits for different audiences.
>
> Jim Klimov
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 2:45 PM Vojtěch Hurčík via Nut-upsuser <
> nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello friends!
>>
>> With the upcoming NUT release there is one thing I would like to ask:
>>
>>-
>>
>>no notification tech defined, will not spam more about
>>
>>
>> I am repeatedly getting these messages in my *syslog* more recently
>> because I do not have *systemd* available to me on my distribution and
>> also do not want to use it.
>>
>> Maybe the debug level for such messages could be raised to 1 instead, as
>> they still seem a bit too spammy for something us, who don't use the
>> *systemd*, already know. At least then we would have a way to suppress
>> them...
>>
>> Vojtěch
>> ___
>> Nut-upsuser mailing list
>> Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
>> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
>>
>
>
___
Nut-upsuser mailing list
Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] Spammy notification-tech diagnostic message
Thanks for your concern.
Technically, it is not about just systemd - other systems where launched
processes that have ways to interact with some OS framework (like SMF,
upstart, Windows services, docker/kubernetes, whatever) *and* such
framework offers ways for services to inform they have started and e.g.
dependencies can begin starting, with better precision than "we have forked
off an init script and assume that this instant its service is fully ready".
One bit that worries me in your report is "I am repeatedly getting these
messages in my *syslog*" - does it mean you get them more often than once
per uptime of each daemon (upsd, upsmon, driver)? Or that you reboot so
often that the "noise" gets your eyes sore? :)
I did initially have the opposite feedback in the beginning, about not
having those notifications working and services set up for
notification-based integration getting restarted by their OS framework
because their startup allegedly timed out.
I think this sort of behaviors with OS-dependent variations was supposed to
become managed by envvars (e.g. offering a toggle to not make noise easy to
set in packaged init-scripts etc.) but it seems that for this particular
case one was not merged. Something similar was discussed about NUT daemon
banner and a few other lines emitted at startup, which some people see as
important post-mortem tool when inspecting logs or console dumps, and
others treat as noise ("unless there's an error, I want to see nothing") -
and frankly both stances have their merits for different audiences.
Jim Klimov
On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 2:45 PM Vojtěch Hurčík via Nut-upsuser <
nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote:
> Hello friends!
>
> With the upcoming NUT release there is one thing I would like to ask:
>
>-
>
>no notification tech defined, will not spam more about
>
>
> I am repeatedly getting these messages in my *syslog* more recently
> because I do not have *systemd* available to me on my distribution and
> also do not want to use it.
>
> Maybe the debug level for such messages could be raised to 1 instead, as
> they still seem a bit too spammy for something us, who don't use the
> *systemd*, already know. At least then we would have a way to suppress
> them...
>
> Vojtěch
> ___
> Nut-upsuser mailing list
> Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
>
___
Nut-upsuser mailing list
Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
[Nut-upsuser] Spammy notification-tech diagnostic message
Hello friends! With the upcoming NUT release there is one thing I would like to ask: - no notification tech defined, will not spam more about I am repeatedly getting these messages in my syslog more recently because I do not have systemd available to me on my distribution and also do not want to use it. Maybe the debug level for such messages could be raised to 1 instead, as they still seem a bit too spammy for something us, who don't use the systemd, already know. At least then we would have a way to suppress them... Vojtěch___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
