[ClusterLabs] Corosync 3 release plans?

[Christine Caulfield]

On 26/09/18 09:21, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> Jan Friesse <jfriesse at redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> wagner.ferenc at kifu.gov.hu writes:
>>
>>> triggered by your favourite IPC mechanism (SIGHUP and SIGUSRx are common
>>> choices, but logging.* cmap keys probably fit Corosync better).  That
>>> would enable proper log rotation.
>>
>> What is the reason that you find "copytruncate" as non-proper log
>> rotation? I know there is a risk to loose some lines, but it should be
>> pretty small.
> 
> Yes, there's a chance of losing some messages.  It may be acceptable in
> some cases, but it's never desirable.  The copy operation also wastes
> I/O bandwidth.  Reopening the log files on some external trigger is a
> better solution on all accounts and also an industry standard.
> 
>> Anyway, this again one of the feature where support from libqb would
>> be nice to have (there is actually issue opened
>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/libqb/issues/239).
> 
> That's a convoluted one for a simple reopen!  But yes, if libqb does not
> expose such functionality, you can't do much about it.  I'll stay with
> syslog for now. :)  In cluster environments centralised log management is
> a must anyway, and that's annoying to achieve with direct file logs.
> 

I'm looking into new features for libqb and the option in
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/libqb/issues/142#issuecomment-76206425
looks like a good option to me. Though adding an API call to re-open the
log file could be done too - I'm not averse to having both,

Chrissie

>>> Jan Friesse <jfriesse at redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> No matter how much I still believe totemsrp as a library would be
>>>> super nice to have - but current state is far away from what I would
>>>> call library (= something small, without non-related things like
>>>> transports/ip/..., testable (ideally with unit tests testing corner
>>>> cases)) and making one fat binary looks like a better way.
>>>>
>>>> I'll made a patch and send PR (it should be easy).
>>>
>>> Sounds sensible.  Somebody can still split it out later if needed.
>>
>> Yep (and PR send + merged already :) )
> 
> Great!  Did you mean to keep the totem.h, totemip.h, totempg.h and
> totemstats.h header files installed nevertheless?  And totem_pg.pc could
> go as well, I guess.
>