Daniel Veillard wrote:
[...]
Morning Daniel,
My experience with systematic logging at command line level is
that
you end up polluting your file system with (hidden) log files, and while it
may be fine for a developper it's not something you want to inflict to
your customers. Also the fixed name for the log file makes it easilly
useless, a random run in the same directory will just wipe out the
data you tried to collect in a separate process.
I think having permanent systematic logging to a fixed file is not
proper, I would rather not use that.
Agreed.
But since the patch is relatively simple based on existing virsh
logging
code, I think this could go as a command line option for virsh, for example
--log filename
where the detailed logs can then be saved if needed when a problem occurs.
I think this would avoid the main drawbacks of your proposed patch.
Did you see my other response to this?
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2007-May/msg00256.html
That script, modified a bit further (see attachment) does logging fairly
well. Having it invoked as a wrapper/replacement for virsh is just a
matter of packaging.
Rich.
--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat -
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in
England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903