Hi Dejan,
Sorrry....I made a mistake in comment.
> When we do not use logd, all log is output.
> * We use logfacility without using logd.
>
> (snip)
> if
> [ -n "$HA_LOGFACILITY" ]
> then
> : logging through syslog
> # loglevel is unknown, use 'notice' for now
> loglevel=notice
> case "${*}" in
> *ERROR*) loglevel=err;;
> *WARN*) loglevel=warning;;
> *INFO*|info) loglevel=info;;
> esac
> logger -t "$HA_LOGTAG" -p ${HA_LOGFACILITY}.${loglevel} "${*}" --->
> this
> fi
> (snip)
This is comment of another problem.
Please please forget this comment.
The main point of my change is not to use ocf_run by monitor processing.
When distance of monitor is short, the reason is because very useless log is
output.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Dejan,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
> > > When we use logd, ocf_log functions well.
> >
> > I don't understand how would logd make a difference?
>
> When we do not use logd, all log is output.
> * We use logfacility without using logd.
>
> (snip)
> if
> [ -n "$HA_LOGFACILITY" ]
> then
> : logging through syslog
> # loglevel is unknown, use 'notice' for now
> loglevel=notice
> case "${*}" in
> *ERROR*) loglevel=err;;
> *WARN*) loglevel=warning;;
> *INFO*|info) loglevel=info;;
> esac
> logger -t "$HA_LOGTAG" -p ${HA_LOGFACILITY}.${loglevel} "${*}" --->
> this
> fi
> (snip)
>
> > > We advance to the direction that does not use logd now.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> In fact, we always used the script which confirmed survival of logd.
> However, we decided to abolish survival monitor of this logd this time.
> And it was decided that the log went by way of a syslog.
>
> > Let's hope we get some input from others too.
>
> All right.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
>
> --- Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:07:07PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Hi Dejan,
> > >
> > > > We need a different kind of ocf_run, the existing one makes too
> > > > much noise. Or to fix it. Anybody against dropping "ocf_log info"?
> > > >
> > > > What is your opinion?
> > >
> > > When we use logd, ocf_log functions well.
> >
> > I don't understand how would logd make a difference?
> >
> > > However, we give considerably annoying log when we do not use logd.
> > >
> > > We advance to the direction that does not use logd now.
> >
> > Why is that?
> >
> > > If a problem is solved by changing it into new ocf_log, I obey the policy.
> >
> > Let's hope we get some input from others too.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dejan
> >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Hideo Yamauchi.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:42:15PM +0900, [email protected]
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I tested the latest edition of pgsql.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, log is output at every monitor processing in the latest
> > > > > edition.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a practice result of select now().
> > > > >
> > > > > Aug 17 15:03:35 n1 pgsql[16269]: INFO: now
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > 2010-08-17-15:03:35.28827+09
> > > > > (1 row)
> > > > > Aug 17 15:03:45 n1 pgsql[16516]: INFO: now
> > > > > ------------------------------- 2010-08-17
> > > > > 15:03:45.528977+09 (1 row)
> > > > >
> > > > > I send the patch which I changed it of to form same as former monitor.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this patch, the log of the monitor processing becomes quiet.
> > > >
> > > > We need a different kind of ocf_run, the existing one makes too
> > > > much noise. Or to fix it. Anybody against dropping "ocf_log info"?
> > > >
> > > > What is your opinion?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Dejan
> > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Hideo Yamauchi.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________________
> > > > > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> > > > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________________
> > > > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> > > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________
> > > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> > _______________________________________________________
> > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
>
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
