accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Change in out-of-the-box log file naming after ACCUMULO-4328
Date Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:25:46 GMT
This is definitely the kind of operational change that needs a release
note. Are we tracking those on the JIRAs that introduce them, or
somewhere else?

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed that the default log file names for Accumulo services has changed
> (I'm assuming after ACCUMULO-4328)
>
> [accumulo@jelser-accumulo-180-2 accumulo-1.8.0]$ ll logs/
> total 188700
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo  17887094 Aug 15 16:13
> gc_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.debug.log
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo  11183781 Aug 15 16:12
> gc_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.log
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo         0 Aug 14 02:50
> gc_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.err.1
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo         0 Aug 14 02:50
> gc_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.out.1
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo         0 Aug 14 01:20
> jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.audit
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo 158246309 Aug 15 16:13
> master_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.debug.log
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo   2157925 Aug 15 16:13
> master_1_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.log
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo         0 Aug 15 16:13
> master_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.err
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 accumulo accumulo         0 Aug 15 16:13
> master_jelser-accumulo-180-2.openstacklocal.out
>
> (note the extra "_1")
>
> IMO, this is an unnecessary change (if I only run one tserver, why are the
> log file names different?), but I'm not presently of the opinion that this
> is a blocker. I just noticed this because of the two different file-naming
> schemes in this directory. I wanted to make sure it was mentioned in case
> someone had a clear case why this may break downstream (e.g. another system
> that would require changes to parse these log names).
>
> Now that I think about it some more, I'm not sure why I don't have "_1"'s
> included in the .out/.err files too. Maybe that is a bug? Is that something
> you recall testing, Dave?
>
> - Josh



-- 
busbey

Mime
View raw message