[ClusterLabs] Opinions wanted: another logfile question for Pacemaker 2.0

Ken Gaillot kgaillot at redhat.com
Mon Jan 15 11:51:34 EST 2018

Currently, Pacemaker will use the same detail log as corosync if one is
specified (as "logfile:" in the "logging {...}" section of

The corosync developers think that is a bad idea, and would like
pacemaker 2.0 to always use its own log.

Corosync and pacemaker both use libqb to write to the logfile. libqb
doesn't have any locking mechanism, so there could theoretically be
some conflicting writes, though we don't see any in practice.

Does anyone have a strong opinion on this one way or the other? Do you
like having pacemaker and corosync detail messages in one logfile, or
would you prefer separate logfiles?

Note that this question only applies to the detail log; the syslog
would still get messages from everything (when configured).
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>

More information about the Users mailing list