Has anybody seen any problems with the log rollovers in Resin Pro 3.0.19 or above?  It seems that most of the issues have been fixed, but the log rollover naming is not working properly for us for the stdout and stderr logs right now.  It was working for a while, but over the past several days it hasn't been correct.
 
Here is how we define the logs in resin.conf:
 
   <stdout-log
        path="logs/stdout-${serverId}.log"
        rollover-period="1D"
        timestamp="[%H:%M:%S.%s] "/>
 
    <stderr-log
        path="logs/stderr-${serverId}.log"
        rollover-period="1D"
        timestamp="[%H:%M:%S.%s] "/>
    <log name="org.apache.geronimo"
         level="finest"
         path="logs/geronimo-${serverId}.log"
         rollover-period="1D"
         timestamp="[%H:%M:%S.%s] "
         format="${log.sourceClassName}.${log.sourceMethodName} ${log.message}" />
 
    <log name="org.jencks"
         level="finest"
         path="logs/jencks-${serverId}.log"
         rollover-period="1D"
         timestamp="[%H:%M:%S.%s] "
         format="${log.sourceClassName}.${log.sourceMethodName} ${log.message}" />
 
And here is what I see in the JVM logs:
 
[2006-09-18 00:00:00] Archiving access log to jencks-app1.log.20060917.
[2006-09-18 00:00:00] Archiving access log to geronimo-app1.log.20060917.
[2006-09-18 00:00:00] Archiving access log to stderr-app1.log.20060917.2359.
[2006-09-18 00:00:00] Archiving access log to stdout-app1.log.20060917.2359.
[2006-09-18 00:00:00] Archiving access log to stdout-app1.log.20060917.23
[2006-09-18 00:00:00] Archiving access log to stdout-app1.log.20060917.2359.0917.
And the files end up being named with a .20060917.2358 extension.  Since the rollover period is 1D, shouldn't the naming convention default to just the date?  As you can see, our other defined logs (for Jencks and Geronimo) are working fine.
 
Do we need to be specifying an archive-format in order to guarantee the naming is accurate?  It seems that the documentation (http://www.caucho.com/resin-3.0/config/log.xtp#rollover) indicates it should default to using %Y%m%d, so I don't think that will make a difference.
 
Any ideas?  I don't see any open issues in BugTrack, what wanted to see if Scott had any suggestions before I opened a new bug.
 
Thanks,
Shane
_______________________________________________
resin-interest mailing list
resin-interest@caucho.com
http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest

Reply via email to