At Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:41:18 +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 06:18:52PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > At Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:38:07 +0900, > > Matsuo Yoshinori wrote: > > > > > > I think the both logging function are needed because of the reasons below. > > > > > > Reason: > > > 1. The dog and the sheep are another process. > > > Even if dog is working good but sheep process may have some trouble. > > > Then we need to track on the sheep process, too. > > > > > > 2. The reason that we want a logging function on sheep process. > > > The sheep processes are always in the cluster, but dog are not. > > > We may not be able to get the evidence log, > > > if dog command was issued from unknown or operators temporary host. > > > > > > 3. The reason that we want a logging function on dog command. > > > Sheep can't log dog command level directry but dog can log more readable > > > log with all command options. > > > The operator wants to see dog command level evidence first, when checking > > > what is done to cluster.
What do you mean by "dog command level"? > > > > > > I would like to know Hitoshi's opinion, too. > > > > I agree with Matsuo-san's opinion. dog and sheep can be executed on > > different hosts, so log for evdence should be written by both of > > them. > > > > In addition, we are building a product, not a service. We need to > > analyze problems based on logs produced by users' deployments when > > they are in trouble. For doing smooth trouble shooting, we need logs > > as much as possible. Because we wouldn't be able to access to users' > > deployments directly. > > > > For expanding use case of sheepdog, this logging enhancement would be > > helpful. > > I am doubtful that these logs can really help debug and if you are selling > service, you should help people who buys your service to deploy sheepdog > correctly. (Deployment can be done automatically by puppet or chef, so what we > need is actually provide mechanisms at best. One mechanism for one problem) > > I personally disagree duplicate the functionality both in dog and sheep, but > if > all other developers are not against it. So I want to hear kazutaka's opinion > on this patch. IMHO, I don't really understand why we have to log dog operations in the dog program. Why can't we do it outside of dog? I mean it looks enough to create a wrapper script like as follows. echo begin <command> dog <command> echo end <command> I'm not against adding more log outputs in sheep, but this patch doesn't look good to me. I'll add some comments later. Thanks, Kazutaka -- sheepdog mailing list sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog