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
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
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
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