4 ms·

No local logging will work without disk space, and if the disk is bad anything can get corrupted.

• mantap 6y ago
  If you are low on disk space you want something predictable to happen: the oldest logs are deleted and the newest logs are written. This would be a nightmare to achieve with SQLite, as said above it's just way too complicated.
  • saati 6y ago
    If you actually care about your logs you should log to a centralized service anyway, and if any of your computers actually ran out of disk space you should fire your sysadmins/sres for incompetence.
    • dijit 6y ago
      This comment denotes, strongly, the dissonance that occurs when talking about something so general. It’s my opinion (as an infrastructure type) that centralised binary logging is an absolute necessity above 20 instances. But that leaves out every person with a laptop, or those people with a very low volume of little instances. Structured logging is difficult, that’s why logstash is so flexible about input and conversions. And I think that was the impetus for systemd’s journals; to log structurally. However. The parent is wrong if he thinks decisions should be made under low disk conditions. Having a rotate rule to keep your sliding window of logs to a certain size is fine. But your servers (and laptops, and desktops) should not be taking arbitrary decisions based on this kind of condition.
      • secabeen 6y ago
        > This comment denotes, strongly, the dissonance that occurs when talking about something so general. > It’s my opinion (as an infrastructure type) that centralised binary logging is an absolute necessity above 20 instances. > But that leaves out every person with a laptop, or those people with a very low volume of little instances. Yep, it also leaves out people on embedded hardware, and on devices that are in remote locations without access to the Internet, or in a car, or on metered Internet, etc. It's hard to hold in your head just how broadly Linux is used these days.
  • sbierwagen 6y ago
    Does logrotate or plain old write() actually handle those error cases by default? It sounds like you're arguing to use an even more sophisticated logging system than the status quota of blindly writing bytes to disk.