From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <g.goller@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B4559EBF1
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 11:49:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3BDFA1BA32
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 11:49:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 11:49:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7FCAF4420C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 11:49:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a9af3d18-1f35-415c-85bc-5a3da6a9e210@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:49:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20231025135325.198073-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
 <20231025135325.198073-3-g.goller@proxmox.com>
 <uilsuhdampqxjkl6j4iqdwnsto2ntft2v2774h7xhulcgaq6lh@knus6hopuhyy>
 <f5833873-687a-4480-b8ad-fb9c151a301f@proxmox.com>
 <niwp2y3yaxptlalae27oehzheyyjykz7mp2qfkfqcg2mlxfrpx@v6chhe34y4vx>
 <a7c9ba7b-4bca-4081-b2dd-658f6152354e@proxmox.com>
 <bftmjcxgdgrpp7m5mwtzp6pwoeo3xztvxy5mykwlchptqdbjfa@52wk3poxkc6x>
 <7e885366-0948-4934-a26c-7c486ff0e5d8@proxmox.com>
 <lxwyytm6b3dqera43d75tatldorsjwydeaaoqgk34zsb2irqlq@b54xbp3qnmb5>
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <lxwyytm6b3dqera43d75tatldorsjwydeaaoqgk34zsb2irqlq@b54xbp3qnmb5>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.266 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC proxmox v2 2/2] proxmox-log: added tracing
 infra
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:49:07 -0000

On 11/3/23 11:39, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:

> [..]
>> Yes, kinda.
>> I think I'll check if a FileLogger exists, then print to syslog or tasklog.
>> The thing is I don't know if I should keep it simple and merge everything
>> in a single layer, or if I should do the check in the Filters (of which
>> there are
>> two, one for each layer).
>> If we merge it into a single layer, it's easy and fast, but it's not that
>> clean
>> anymore, we can't reuse the single layers etc..
> But do we even want to right now?
> If so we can still split them later.
>
>> If we keep them separated, we have to check twice if the FileLogger exists
>> (in each filter)
> I'm confused, I thought one layer was only for syslog, why would we
> check the file logger there?
Because if we write the log to tasklog, we don't want to write
to syslog as well.
>> (it's probably not so expensive, but still) but we'll keep the FileLogLayer
>> and the
>> SyslogLayer separated and clean.
>> What do you think?
> I'd lean towards a single layer, mainly because I don't currently see
> the immediate use of multiple ones.
>
> I mean, we can still change things later if we need to.
> But IMO the current set of requirements should be covered fine by one
> layer.
I agree, I will submit a first version of the patch shortly.