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.