On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:55:18PM +0200, Jan Zerebecki wrote: > > On 09/07/2019 10.35, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > If virtlogd is active, we do *not* want logrotate doing anything at all. > > Are you saying that to fix the bug at hand, I should be required to > first implement 2 features in virtlogd and replace the current logrotate > config (none of which caused the bug)? I'm simply saying that trying to use logrotate at the same time as virtlogd is not a desirable way to solve the problem. There are a variety of other options that could be explored > > Trying to get sensible interaction between two separate log rotation > > apps is adding too much complexity. > > It is not added. It is already there. Multiple distros I checked ship > this as the default config. Sorry, if that wasn't your intention. Shipping the configs is not a problem as long as make the logrotate config a no-op when virtlogd is active, which was the intention and is fixed in: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-July/msg00313.html > > Further, any purging of log files needs to take in to account what > > guests actually exist in libvirt. The proposed change has no such > > checks. It must only purge log files for guests which are neither > > running, nor have any persistent config on disk, and where the log > > file is older than "N days" for some configurable "N". > > Not if time based rotation is already desired, then there is no need to > know if the guest still exists. If its not desired, then this is as > complicated as you say, but the existing logrotate config already > doesn't fulfill that. It will no longer be time based with the above fix. 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
