On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:26:36PM +0000, Jim Fehlig wrote: > On 7/3/19 2:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:32:21 +0200, Jan Zerebecki wrote: > >>> On 03/07/2019 08.03, Peter Krempa wrote: > >>>> I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do. virtlogd has some > >>>> internal log rotation mechanisms > >>> > >>> logrotate is already in use here and this patch doesn't change what is > >>> rotated nor how often it is rotated. > >>> > >>>> and also the SIGUSR1 action is reserved > >>>> for re-exec updates and not for dealing with modified files > >>> > >>> The mechanism (re-exec) and implementation details for both uses do not > >>> conflict. > >> > >> The problem is that the logrotate configs predate use of virtlogd and I > >> don't think they were adapted to be used together. In fact if I remember > >> correctly the idea of virtlogd was to avoid using logrotate altogether. > > > > Yes, logrotate should not be in effect when virtlogd is running. We should > > ensure that logrotate rollover size is *larger* than the rollover size > > configured for virtlogd. This would ensure virtlogd rolls over first, and > > thus when logrotate runs it should see nothing todo. > > Hmm, it sounds like the proper fix is to simply remove > src/remote/libvirtd.qemu.logrotate.in? We didn't want to remove it because whether or not to use virtlogd is a config file tunable. Hence we want to make sure that its default settings end up being a no-op if virtlogd has already done its own rollover Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
