From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9E651FF380
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:56:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C27C1DB9;
	Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:56:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d205f7db-51fe-4afd-b0cb-5e94d344b07c@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:56:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20240418091650.51366-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <20240418091650.51366-7-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <5b8d83bb-70de-46dc-bbd5-7cd71d4d1ee0@proxmox.com>
 <891f5346072232e5b4a9b1dabdfc54eea3b74170.camel@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Mira Limbeck <m.limbeck@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <891f5346072232e5b4a9b1dabdfc54eea3b74170.camel@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.140 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
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL          0.1 Meta: its spam
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 7/7] report: add recent boot
 timestamps which may show fencing/crash events
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 4/18/24 17:45, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-04-18 at 12:43 +0200, Mira Limbeck wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 11:16, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
>>> Successful boots which crashed somehow and sometime afterwards, will
>>> show the same "until" value ("still running" or timestamp) as the next
>>> following boot(s). The most recent boot from such a sequence of
>>> duplicated "until" lines, has not been crashed or not yet.
>>>
>>> Example output where only the boot from 16:25:41 crashed:
>>>  reboot system boot 6.5.11-7-pve Thu Apr 11 16:31:24 2024 still running
>>>  reboot system boot 6.5.11-7-pve Thu Apr 11 16:29:17 2024 - Thu Apr 11 16:31:12 2024 (00:01)
>>>  reboot system boot 6.5.11-7-pve Thu Apr 11 16:25:41 2024 - Thu Apr 11 16:31:12 2024 (00:05)
>>>  ...
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it shows the booted/crashed/problematic kernel version.
>>>
>>> `last` is also used since currently `journalctl --list-boots` can take
>>> 10 seconds or even longer on some systems, with no option to limit the
>>> amount of reported boot lines.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> * move away from dmesg base
>>> * list also recent (5) boot timestamps with additional information
>>>
>>> v1: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-March/062342.html
>>>
>>>
>>>  PVE/Report.pm | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/PVE/Report.pm b/PVE/Report.pm
>>> index d9f81a0f..c3abb776 100644
>>> --- a/PVE/Report.pm
>>> +++ b/PVE/Report.pm
>>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ my $init_report_cmds = sub {
>>>  		'hostname',
>>>  		'date -R',
>>>  		'cat /proc/cmdline',
>>> +		'last reboot -F -n5',
>>>  		'pveversion --verbose',
>>>  		'cat /etc/hosts',
>>>  		'pvesubscription get',
>>
>> Do we want the reboot info that far up, even above the version output?
>> I'd say it's less interesting most of the time than the `pveversion` output.
> 
> I'm not sure if it really fits better with your suggestion. Because, while
> the pveversion output can be considered as often more relevant, I have placed
> it as it is because it fits well with the surrounding information:
> 
> * You can see/compare the booted kernel versions to the kernel command line
>   and pveversion output.
> 
> * For the kernel command line it makes rather sense to have it at the
>   beginning of the report.
The kernel command line makes sense up there. I agree.
But the reboots are often less interesting/important than the pveversion
output.
So I'd prefer the pveversion output to stay as far up as possible (after
hostname, date and cmdline).

>> * Also it may be interesting how frequent the host is rebooted (e.g. after
>   kernel updates)
> 
> 
> Btw. the "wtmp begins ..." output does not have to be the installation date.
> In case we do not store this information somewhere, currently something like
> 
> stat / | grep Birth
> 
> could be used if needed>
>>
>> And for uptime, we do have /cluster/resources and `top` which both show it.
>> Maybe it could be moved a bit further down? After /cluster/resources
>> could perhaps be a nice spot since it is (currently) followed by `top`?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel