Re: Buster without systemd?
On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 14:19:34 (+0100), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:55:32AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 04:38:10 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > There are valid reasons for systemd's binary format. Space savings
> > > is very far off the top of the list (probably it isn't on that list
> > > at all).
> >
> > Can you (or someone else) elaborate on that a little?
>
> Strictly defined structure instead of parsing. Indexing, so you can
> easily cross-reference logs. Support for cryptographic integrity
> (think blockchain).
>
> You might think these features are worth the complexity or they
> aren't, but assuming the designers are idiots is wrong on more than
> one level.
>
> > (Aside: I don't (yet -- or at least not intentionally) use systemd (well, or
> > have any trouble / interaction with it -- I suppose it might have been
> > installed on either my Jessie or Buster installs by default, and I haven't had
> > to dig into those logs, so don't know if they're readable.)
>
> I can't check right now, but AFAIK Debian's default config forwards the
> binary logs to something logging in text, to be backwards compatible
> (to oldish sysadmins, like me ;-)
Yes, AFAIK that's what my logging is relying on, in which journalctl
only handles the current boot, and text logs store everything.
And AIUI in order to change over to all-binary logging, you have to
create the directory for it: /var/log/journal.
Which is why I don't understand the moaning about systemd's binary logs:
AFAICT, you asked for it, you got it. But what do I know; I just run
plain vanilla Debian.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: