> On July 13, 2016, 12:25 a.m., Jonathan Hurley wrote:
> > So you changed the default level from ALL to INFO ... but you could still 
> > setup a rolling file appender, right? Wouldn't that also help to curb the 
> > size of the log file? What if a customer increases the log level for some 
> > reason - they're going to be back at the same problem.

@Jonathan, org.apache.log4j.DailyRollingFileAppender is already set for kms and 
kms-audit. This patch was to atleast set the default to INFO rather than the 
more verbose ALL. Thanks.


- Gautam


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49897/#review141988
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 11, 2016, 2:39 p.m., Gautam Borad wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49897/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 11, 2016, 2:39 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Alejandro Fernandez, Jonathan Hurley, Sumit 
> Mohanty, Srimanth Gunturi, and Velmurugan Periasamy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-17617
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-17617
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Kms log file is getting bigger till 18 GB , causing No space left on device 
> for inode.
> Problem is :
> 1. by default debug log is generated in the kms.log fle
> 2. there is no split in log file if there is over flow of logs in kms.log 
> file like other access audit logs file and xa_portal logs.
> 
> Fixed the above by setting default log level to INFO.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/RANGER_KMS/0.5.0.2.3/configuration/kms-log4j.xml
>  61aede3 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49897/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested on a local centos6 cluster with kms and monitored the log file.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gautam Borad
> 
>

Reply via email to