4 ms·

Linux and SystemD work and work good. Because the people who use it like it and we don't have many complaints besides logs are no longer text files we have to u

by baldfat 12y ago

Linux and SystemD work and work good. Because the people who use it like it and we don't have many complaints besides logs are no longer text files we have to use journalctl. The strong critics usually go the route of "It remains to be seen if this is a good or bad thing." Systemd has been a replacement for the worst part of Linux, init. It was confusing and was just barely workable. It has been needing replacement for 5 or more years. There were SEVERAL solutions brought out and well more developers like SystemD more then the rest. As a user in Arch Linux, OpenSUSE and Fedora it has been rock solid and I have been able to do things at my knowledge level much more consistent and lower level.

zobzu 12y ago
you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog (eg rsyslog) and that works well/its easy to do. You can even disable the journald logging itself and just have rsyslog (or the logger of your choice). at my place we kept both journald and have rsyslog to redirect logs to the network. ie our /var/log is relatively empty (rsyslog isnt setup to log to disk) so we look at log on the machine via journald if needed (rarely - since we look at the central log aggregator instead)
- jude- 12y ago
  > you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog That's a contradiction. You're running journald even if it's dead weight.
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    And if journald goes belly up, no logs for syslog...
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      As if syslog cannot go belly up as well.
      - feld 12y ago
        When have you ever seen syslog go belly up?
        general_failure 12y ago
        You are clearly too young to remember. But don't worry journal will get there
        feld 12y ago
        That's the entire point. Syslog has years of stability and reliability. You don't just throw that away, especially for such an important role.
        pjmlp 12y ago
        Can you assure it is 100% failure proof in all UNIX variants that have one running?
      - e12e 12y ago
        Lets assume for the sake of argument that logind (a new codebase) is about as stable as syslog (anyone of which are several years old, well tested). Layering one on top of the other, you now have doubled the chance of one of them going belly up.
    - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
      And if syslog goes belly up no logs. What's your point?
      - chronid 12y ago
        So now instead of syslog we have journald AND syslog - we only doubled the risk of something going boom and taking away our ability to log. I don't think that's nice.
      - lil_cain 12y ago
        You used have one component that needed to fail to start losing logs. Now you have two.
  - zobzu 12y ago
    Technically its really just a socket dup
- silon3 12y ago
  Using sane/standard logging should be the first thing an installer asks before installing systemd based OS. In fact, just make separate .isos for this. (and I like systemd, at least in theory - and running Fedora 20).
  - johnny22 12y ago
    opensuse and debian both continue to log to their respective syslog implementations.

by baldfat 12y ago

zobzu 12y ago

you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog (eg rsyslog) and that works well/its easy to do. You can even disable the journald logging itself and just have rsyslog (or the logger of your choice). at my place we kept both journald and have rsyslog to redirect logs to the network. ie our /var/log is relatively empty (rsyslog isnt setup to log to disk) so we look at log on the machine via journald if needed (rarely - since we look at the central log aggregator instead)

jude- 12y ago
> you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog That's a contradiction. You're running journald even if it's dead weight.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  And if journald goes belly up, no logs for syslog...
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    As if syslog cannot go belly up as well.
    - feld 12y ago
      When have you ever seen syslog go belly up?
      - general_failure 12y ago
        You are clearly too young to remember. But don't worry journal will get there
        feld 12y ago
        That's the entire point. Syslog has years of stability and reliability. You don't just throw that away, especially for such an important role.
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        Can you assure it is 100% failure proof in all UNIX variants that have one running?
    - e12e 12y ago
      Lets assume for the sake of argument that logind (a new codebase) is about as stable as syslog (anyone of which are several years old, well tested). Layering one on top of the other, you now have doubled the chance of one of them going belly up.
  - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
    And if syslog goes belly up no logs. What's your point?
    - chronid 12y ago
      So now instead of syslog we have journald AND syslog - we only doubled the risk of something going boom and taking away our ability to log. I don't think that's nice.
    - lil_cain 12y ago
      You used have one component that needed to fail to start losing logs. Now you have two.
- zobzu 12y ago
  Technically its really just a socket dup
silon3 12y ago
Using sane/standard logging should be the first thing an installer asks before installing systemd based OS. In fact, just make separate .isos for this. (and I like systemd, at least in theory - and running Fedora 20).
- johnny22 12y ago
  opensuse and debian both continue to log to their respective syslog implementations.