[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11934?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16415596#comment-16415596
 ] 

Jan Høydahl commented on SOLR-11934:
------------------------------------

Thanks for the tip!

> Visit Solr logging, it's too noisy.
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-11934
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11934
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: Erick Erickson
>            Assignee: Erick Erickson
>            Priority: Major
>
> I think we have way too much INFO level logging. Or, perhaps more correctly, 
> Solr logging needs to be examined and messages logged at an appropriate level.
> We log every update at an INFO level for instance. But I think we log LIR at 
> INFO as well. As a sysadmin I don't care to have my logs polluted with a 
> message for every update, but if I'm trying to keep my system healthy I want 
> to see LIR messages and try to understand why.
> Plus, in large installations logging at INFO level is creating a _LOT_ of 
> files.
> What I want to discuss on this JIRA is
> 1> What kinds of messages do we want log at WARN, INFO, DEBUG, and TRACE 
> levels?
> 2> Who's the audience at each level? For a running system that's functioning, 
> sysops folks would really like WARN messages that mean something need 
> attention for instance. If I'm troubleshooting should I turn on INFO? DEBUG? 
> TRACE?
> So let's say we get some kind of agreement as to the above. Then I propose 
> three things
> 1> Someone (and probably me but all help gratefully accepted) needs to go 
> through our logging and assign appropriate levels. This will take quite a 
> while, I intend to work on it in small chunks.
> 2> Actually answer whether unnecessary objects are created when something 
> like log.info("whatever {}", someObjectOrMethodCall); is invoked. Is this 
> independent on the logging implementation used? The SLF4J and log4j seem a 
> bit contradictory.
> 3> Maybe regularize log, logger, LOG as variable names, but that's a nit.
> As a tactical approach, I suggest we tag each LoggerFactory.getLogger in 
> files we work on with //SOLR-(whatever number is assigned when I create 
> this). We can remove them all later, but since I expect to approach this 
> piecemeal it'd be nice to keep track of which files have been done already.
> Finally, I really really really don't want to do this all at once. There are 
> 5-6 thousand log messages. Even at 1,000 a week that's 6 weeks, even starting 
> now it would probably span the 7.3 release.
> This will probably be an umbrella issue so we can keep all the commits 
> straight and people can volunteer to "fix the files in core" as a separate 
> piece of work (hint).
> There are several existing JIRAs about logging in general, let's link them in 
> here as well.
> Let the discussion begin!



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to