Re: [ClusterLabs] Opinions wanted: another logfile question for Pacemaker 2.0

2018-01-16 Thread Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:19:27 -0600 Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 18:08 +0100, Klaus Wenninger wrote: > > On 01/15/2018 05:51 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > > Currently, Pacemaker will use the same detail log as corosync if > > > one is > > > specified (as

Re: [ClusterLabs] Opinions wanted: another logfile question for Pacemaker 2.0

2018-01-15 Thread Ken Gaillot
On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 18:08 +0100, Klaus Wenninger wrote: > On 01/15/2018 05:51 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > Currently, Pacemaker will use the same detail log as corosync if > > one is > > specified (as "logfile:" in the "logging {...}" section of > > corosync.conf). > > > > The corosync developers

Re: [ClusterLabs] Opinions wanted: another logfile question for Pacemaker 2.0

2018-01-15 Thread Klaus Wenninger
On 01/15/2018 06:08 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote: > On 01/15/2018 05:51 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >> Currently, Pacemaker will use the same detail log as corosync if one is >> specified (as "logfile:" in the "logging {...}" section of >> corosync.conf). >> >> The corosync developers think that is a bad

Re: [ClusterLabs] Opinions wanted: another logfile question for Pacemaker 2.0

2018-01-15 Thread Klaus Wenninger
On 01/15/2018 05:51 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > Currently, Pacemaker will use the same detail log as corosync if one is > specified (as "logfile:" in the "logging {...}" section of > corosync.conf). > > The corosync developers think that is a bad idea, and would like > pacemaker 2.0 to always use its