Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

logging should be unified #321

Closed
garlick opened this issue Aug 10, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

logging should be unified #321

garlick opened this issue Aug 10, 2015 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@garlick
Copy link
Member

garlick commented Aug 10, 2015

The log interfaces in libutil/log.[ch] should be deprecated.

flux_log() should be enhanced to:

  • do something sensible when flux_t handle is NULL
  • be configurable to log to stderr or syslog on any/all ranks in cases where the enclosing instance should be capturing the messages (e.g. LOG_CRIT or above?)
  • provide errno decoding (including zeromq errno space) via %m or similar

oom() needs to be replaced with a configurable out of memory handler so ENOMEM can be dealt with appropriately for the situation.

flux_panic() and FASSERT() should be integrated with the overall logging strategy.

Possibly flux-start needs to capture stdio of the flux-broker processes in a local launch so that log messages to stderr from different ranks can be collated.

@garlick
Copy link
Member Author

garlick commented Dec 28, 2016

Some parts of this have been completed:

  • libutil/log.[ch] has been stripped down and namespaced; what's left is still useful e.g. in utilities
  • Flux logging (in the broker) is configurable to messages that exceed a severity threshold to stderr (see log-stderr-level attribute)
  • flux-start uses libsubprocess to manage broker processes so it would be quite easy now to collate stdio (via subprocess zio) should that be desired

We still need to review flux_panic() and FASSERT(), and consider replacing oom() with a generic handler.

@garlick garlick added this to the release 0.7.0 milestone Jan 4, 2017
@garlick garlick removed this from the release 0.7.0 milestone Mar 28, 2017
@chu11 chu11 added this to the release 0.8.0 milestone Apr 4, 2017
@chu11 chu11 modified the milestones: release 0.9.0, release 0.8.0 Aug 23, 2017
@garlick
Copy link
Member Author

garlick commented Sep 14, 2017

This issue is a bit broad and outdated. Closing, will reopen focused issues as needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants