[Pdns-users] Why does pdns_recursor log stats at priority error
pdns-users at lists.b0rken.net
Fri Sep 14 06:06:02 UTC 2007
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:08:33AM +0100, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> On 13/09/2007, bert hubert <bert.hubert at netherlabs.nl> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:45:52PM +0100, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> > > We collect all our syslog error messages into one file - getting
> > > pdns_recursors stats in there is blooming irritating. Is there a good
> > > reason it doesn't log them at something like info?
> > Not really - Jan Gyselinck looked into our logging priorities some time ago
> > and changed a number of them.
> > The problem is that syslog thinks in terms of 'severity', and we tend to
> > think in terms of 'important' or 'unimportant'. While the statistics are not
> > errors, many people like to actually see them.
> In the right circumstances I'm interested in seeing everything, but
> the priorities form a useful filter for admins. If I was honest I
> think much of the logging is at far too high a priority - startup
> notices for example I'd expect to be "notice" (normal, but
> significant). warning I expect to be something minor is wrong, if you
> see lots of these you should really go investigate.
*nod* I've worked a bit at that some time ago, and it wasn't as easy as
I though it would be. I don't think Bert applied the supplied patch
completely, but I do know that things were better afterwards.
At that time nobody else seemed to be interested in this, which makes
it hard to do drastic changes (why do it when nobody is interested ;).
So now we have other people who find this important, we might advance
some more ;)
> > Having said that, I think we could lower this to 'Warning' w/o upsetting
> > things too much. Many installations actually monitor these log messages, it
> > appears.
> How about if I throw a patch together adjusting priorities together
> with a rationale for each change?
Good idea, that's the way you do it (you play the guitar on the MTV).
More information about the Pdns-users