5 ms·

Depending on your disk not to magically fill up is very different from relying on this FUSE daemon to be up and operational.

• e12e 12y ago
  To be clear, I do think it's a valid concern -- my point was that "what if log location isn't writable/disk is full" is pretty basic concern that any daemon should account for (what happens if somehow mount -oro /var/log?). And writes failing shouldn't be that much of an alien error condition. In sum, if fuse/loggerfs together can guarantee that every possible state will result in sane (error) state on writes -- this shouldn't be worse than a disk dying/fs corruption/disk-full type failure. It will obviously be another point of failure. On a side note, mounting this under eg /var/log, and then having a strong guarantee that failure will result in an unmount, revealing a writable /var/log seems like the best of both worlds. Would probably have to HUP all writers though...
  • hueving 12y ago
    >what if log location isn't writable/disk is full These are two different cases though. If a disk is full the write fails and software usually handles that well. Depending on the state of FUSE, it will just block indefinitely.