On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:24:46 +0200, Michal Marek said: > On 28.4.2011 02:25, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:35:13 +0200, Borislav Petkov said: > > > >> If we do this inclusive, then W=2 dumps the, let's call it, level 1 > >> _plus_ the new level 2 warnings, polluting the output with something > >> I've already seen, but only partially. And then I start to think, did > >> I see this one already, didn't I, which was it? By the time you enable > >> W=3, the output becomes pretty useless. For example, W=3 generates 190+ > >> MB logfile here only with level 3 warnings. Now imagine all 3 levels > >> combined. > > > > If each level is averaging 10x the previous level, then all 3 levels will only be 11% > > bigger, or 211MB. > > > > You *really* want to get *all* the warnings - quite often, you'll be looking > > at a set of 15 or 20 level-3 warnings. And if you had the Level-2's in there as > > well, you'd immediately realize that the single level-2 was the real root-cause > > of all the cascating warnings. > > How about W=12 for level 1 and 2 warnings and W=123 for all levels? I'd be OK with that, or a 'W=all', or whatever, as long as it's doable.
Attachment:
pgpYIZt_E5WZg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
