Re: default journal retention policy

[Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Do, 22.12.22 10:56, Chris Murphy (lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

> The consensus of the discussion is that there should be less
> retention. The range of retention varies quite a bit, but I think
> 3-6 months is OK.

Sounds OK to me.

> Still another idea, we could add a new setting MinRetentionSec=90day
> which would translate into "not less than 90 days" and would only
> delete journal files once all the entries in a journal file are at
> least 90 days old.

Well, that naming would suggest it would override the size
constraints, and it shouldn't. But yeah, ignoring the choice of name I
think it would make sense to add that. Add an RFE.

> By leaving all the other settings alone, the 4G cap (or if less, the
> 10% of file system size rule) still applies. So in no case would any
> use case end up using more space for logs.

Yeah, both make sense to me.

(I'd probably go for the more conservative 6month or so, and see what
kind of feedback we'll get)

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin