CTDB Logging: File or syslog?

[Michael Adam]

On 2015-01-28 at 21:19 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2015-01-28 at 12:26 -0600, José A. Rivera wrote:
> > Hey list,
> > 
> > I've heard that for production scenarios it is sensible to use syslog for
> > CTDB logging because CTDB doesn't handle log rotation very well (it doesn't
> > use SIGHUP for that?).
> 
> ctdb does not react to sighup or any other signal the way
> other daemons do, i.e. with reopening its log files.
> There is no function to reopen the log files at all.
> I.e. for all I know, the log file is only ever opened at
> startup time.
> But external log rotation usually moves the log file and
> sends the process some signal, which won't have an effect
> here, i.e. ctdb will happily continue logging to the renamed
> log file.
> 
> And there is no internal log rotation (as with samba's .old
> mechanism either), so afaik, ctdb will fill all disk space
> that is available.
> 
> The only workaround would be to copy the logfile
> instead of moving it and then truncating the original
> log file. But you will lose a few bytes with every
> rotation.

I forgot to say that at least I would love to see a
reopen-logs / SIGHUP mechanism implemented in ctdb,
since I personally greatly prefer file logging.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20150128/93007b8a/attachment.pgp>