[blfs-support] Systemd's journal (was Re: Latest news in GNOME world)
baho-utot at columbus.rr.com
Mon Nov 12 15:39:35 PST 2012
On 11/12/2012 04:26 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 11:56 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> What advantages does systemd give?
>>> Binary logs? That's a little difficult to work with if Xorg isn't
>>> working. How do you grep a binary log?
>> I was going to say 'me too' to all of your post, Bruce, but then, in
>> trying to find the list of 18(!) guides on how to use the various
>> components of systemd came across
>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/journalctl.html which describes how to
>> access the binary logs. The features it provides all seem pretty neat
>> and all accessible from the command line. So, that's one less thing for
>> me to hold against it.
> OK, let's discuss this. My first comment is that when you have custom
> programs like this, the author has to think about everything an admin
> might ever want. What if the admin wants something the author didn't
> think about?
> Second is that you are using different tools from other logs such as
> apache, ftp, mail and any other application that writes a log.
> Third, if the logs were ascii, the bells and whistles in the link above
> could be accomplished with a bash script fairly easily.
> About the only really sensible argument is that binary logs use less
> disk space. In the days of TB drives, even that isn't a big deal.
> To me the whole systemd philosophy moves away from user knows best to
> developer knows best. That's just like MS and Apple. The difference of
> course is that systemd *is* open source and we don't have to use it.
> -- Bruce
> P.S. I never did like wtmp, btmp, utmp for pretty much the same reasons
> as above.
Fourth he binary log gets corrupted, how does one recover that?
Ie the disk log space fills up, does it keep writing?
More information about the blfs-support