Re: Heads up: persistent journal has been enabled in systemd
Scott Kitterman - 06.02.20, 06:27:44 CET:
> >Are you suggesting that voters fully understood the implications?
> >Is this OK now to replace everything with systemd counterparts?
> >
> >I certainly voted with considerations for _init_ system.
> >
> >If I recall correctly, no GR option suggested to "use as much systemd
> >components as possible" or I think the outcome of GR could have been
> >different...
> >
> >Anyway the big disadvantage of changing default is that now random
> >Debian
> >systems will have no traditional logging interface (rsyslog) and
> >we're all
> >will be forced to adapt to the new interface in the absence of old
> >one on
> >some systems...
>
> I think you need to go reread the option that won.
>
> I make no claims about what others understood or didn't, but to me
> this is exactly the kind of thing that the winning option makes
> likely. That doesn't mean I like it, but we had a GR, now we're
> stuck with it.
Well, that is *exactly* why I thought the GR is not going to be helpful.
Cause in *no way* it appeared to have *solved* the conflict underneath
it.
I'd still love to see otherwise. But right now I see the same "I am
right and you are wrong" pattern arise in this discussion as before. And
also the same meta discussion as in "you are not discussing it in the
right way or proper way" code of conduct related thing. As if the GR did
not even have concluded. The GR was still within a win-loose setting and
here it shows.
The GR did *not* change any of the involved people and their behavior.
And my bet is, that it won't do that in the future anyway.
That written: I do not care at all whether Systemd by default stores the
journal persistently or not. Especially as I am not even using it on my
own systems anymore.
But I do not like rsyslog to be removed from the default install. It
might be a nice idea to improve its default configuration here and there,
but only with good justification. So for example SUSE has stopped using
those insufficient time stamps with SLE 12 already. I know there is a
compatibility bug somewhere… but if log reading software has not yet
adapted to modern standard conform timestamps, I'd not let that hold
back progress. I am considering to comment out that
RSYSLOG_TraditionalFileFormat line, cause really let that old insufficient
time stamps be gone already. I say this with my log analysis trainer hat
on. With the same hat on I say… I still like to use rsyslog. I can
process that with standard tools I can use with any other text file
instead of having to learn a ton of options of journalctl. Simplicity as
a goal. I love to see that come back to software development! And
neither Logstash nor Fluentd or Graylog have issues dealing with those
text files and manage to dig out the relevant information out of them
just fine.
Mind you, as far as I am aware neither SUSE nor Red Hat dared to remove
rsyslog from their enterprise offerings so far. Just imagine the uproar
this would cause! I know Fedora has it removed, but CentOS 7 certainly
has not and neither SLE 12 and 15. I am not completely sure about CentOS
8 cause I did not consciously check, but I believe I have seen rsyslog
running there as well.
Best,
--
Martin
Reply to: