[openib-general] [PATCH] opensm: truncate log file when fs is overflowed

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 18:54 Tue 29 Aug     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 18:25, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 15:13 -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:21, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 06:28:06PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I would definitely put the option in, and in fact would default it to
> > > > > *NOT* truncate.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree. I have never seen any other daemon with a logfile do this,
> > > > why are we out to surprise the admin? The admin might want the start
> > > > of the long instead of the end. And so on.
> > > 
> > > I agree too but there is perhaps a difference here per degree: OpenSM
> > > can spew copious logging and fill /var/log readily.
> > 
> > In which case the -L option to limit the maximum log file size makes
> > sense (as does making sure that the default logging level is warnings
> > and above, not all sorts of informational stuff unless requested in
> > order to keep logs more manageable under normal circumstances).
> > 
> > In response to another statement made in another email, for better or
> > worse, OpenSM *is* a system daemon at this point.  If you don't have (or
> > elect not to use) a switch embedded SM, then OpenSM is necessary to keep
> > your fabric operational.
> > 
> > Or to put it another way: if you need to start it during init for your
> > system to operate properly, and if it needs to keep running all the
> > time, and if you need elevated permissions to run it, and if it has an
> > init script...you get the point...the rest of the world is going to tell
> > you this is a system daemon with console capabilities, not a console
> > program with daemon capabilities.  As such, always thinking of it from
> > the perspective of a daemon would be wise in terms of avoiding
> > surprising users down the road IMO.
> 
> Well stated and I concur with that viewpoint.
> 
> I may be mistaken but I think Sasha may have been referring to some
> things that could/might be done to make it behave better as a daemon.

Yes, exactly. My point was to state that OpenSM as it is today cannot be
called a daemon. And I agree that there is functional requirement for
this.

Sasha

> 
> -- Hal
>