Forgot to mention earlier: this is taken care of to a degree which makes me happy. I could not find any discernable difference that existing users would run into with 1.8.0.
On Aug 15, 2016 12:38, <[email protected]> wrote: > > The change to add the instance number to the .out and .err files should be > pretty simple. I'll take a look at it. Regarding the change if there is > only one tserver, I'm not sure how you would specify the conditional in the > logging configuration file. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> > To: "dev" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 12:20:39 PM > Subject: Change in out-of-the-box log file naming after ACCUMULO-4328 > > I noticed that the default log file names for Accumulo services has > changed (I'm assuming after ACCUMULO-4328) > > [accumulo@jelser-accumulo-180-2 accumulo-1.8.0]$ ll logs/ > total 188700 > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 17887094 Aug 15 16:13 > gc_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.debug.log > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 11183781 Aug 15 16:12 > gc_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.log > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 0 Aug 14 02:50 > gc_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.err.1 > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 0 Aug 14 02:50 > gc_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.out.1 > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 0 Aug 14 01:20 > jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.audit > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 158246309 Aug 15 16:13 > master_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.debug.log > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 2157925 Aug 15 16:13 > master_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.log > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 0 Aug 15 16:13 > master_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.err > -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 0 Aug 15 16:13 > master_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.out > > (note the extra "_1") > > IMO, this is an unnecessary change (if I only run one tserver, why are > the log file names different?), but I'm not presently of the opinion > that this is a blocker. I just noticed this because of the two different > file-naming schemes in this directory. I wanted to make sure it was > mentioned in case someone had a clear case why this may break downstream > (e.g. another system that would require changes to parse these log names). > > Now that I think about it some more, I'm not sure why I don't have > "_1"'s included in the .out/.err files too. Maybe that is a bug? Is that > something you recall testing, Dave? > > - Josh > >
