On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 03/27/2012 06:17 PM, William Heinbockel wrote:
On Mar 27, 2012 4:17 PM, <david@lang.hm mailto:david@lang.hm> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, William Heinbockel wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:18 PM, <david@lang.hm
mailto:david@lang.hm> wrote:
I posted some of this at the bottom of a long message yesterday
that nobody
replied to, so I broke it out to a separate thread
The traditional syslog interface has been a write-only interface,
with the
only feedback being that the write could block.
With the new formats and new syslog replacement library, does
there need to
be some rethinking of this interface?
JSON can be pushed through the traditional syslog interface with
no changes
(which is one of the attractions of using JSON), but when we support additional formats, especially ones with type information, we need
to have a
way to tell what format to use when writing the log.
I don't think this is right approach. The end goal is to support structured log messages. The first step is to introduce the capability to sent structured events via existing capabilities (read: JSON over Syslog)
The next steps would be the ELAPI/selog API that would introduce a new logging interface, probably maintaining at least minimal compatibility with the syslog daemon (not the syslog API or syslog protocol). This would allow us to define and support more feature-rich log protocols and other features.
But does this mean that unless applications are re-written, they
will never send structured logs at all?
There are only two ways to have applications log with structured data:
- Update the app to send name-value pairs
- Use something like patterndb to convert the unstructured data
If the app wants to leverage structured data, they will already have to make some updates. We just offer them a choice to either use the minimal umberlog interface or convert to a more full featured one.
I see there being value in having the cee-syslog replacement library
that sends the metadata structured around the existing unstructured log data. It's not as good as a full structured log, but it's a lot better than the existing situation.
This could be done by configuring things in the openlog call, but that requries changes to every application.
I think it would be better to have the serialization format be
determined
automatically by the library if possible.
One way to do this is to have a handshake.
When a app opens /dev/log, the syslog server sends a capabilities
message.
The client can ignore this message and send traditional formatted
syslog
data to the server
Or, the client can read the capabilities message and then pick which supported format (potentially with compression options) to use to
send data
to the server.
This approach lets the format be anything that the library
supports, under
the control of the sysadmin of the system (by configuring what
capabilities
the syslog daemon advertises) without the application programmer
needing to
know anything about these formats.
thoughts?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and try to shoehorn a solution into existing/legacy capabilities. We should approach this as a two-pronged solution:
- Backwards-compatible structured log implementation that works with
the syslog API and syslog protocol (this is umberlog). This should be as minimal and compatible as possible. I commend Gergely on his implementation
- Implement a new event API frontend and improved logging
capabilities. This should be able to work with syslogd, but does not have any requirements to be able to work with the existing syslog API, syslog protocol, /dev/log, etc.
Adding a new application API to generate more structured logs is a
good idea. But why do we need to create a completely new interface between the logging library and syslog instead of extending the existing interface?
You don't know what you are going to break and you restrict yourself to the limitations of the current interface. It is not that I am against it, just if we want to improve it it might be best to redo it entirely.
Also, remember that there is more than just syslog and user apps as potential customers. There is also the kernel, klogd, and auditd.
William Heinbockel
With the current plan we ask application developers to change things twice. First to new syslog umberlog interface and then later to a better interface. IMO this is wrong. I tried to rise the concerns about this several times but have not been heard.
as I am understanding it, the primary value of umberlog is that it gets us structured metadata (and more metadata) with no application changes.
I agree that we need to define additional functions to use for adding application structured data to the log.
IMO we need to define one interface that the application developers would use and start to migrate to and then evolve the infrastructure under it.
We should take selog or like, polish it warp around ul_log or pure syslog and have as an interface. While developers would migrate to it we will evolve the library and syslog implementation under it to serialize and format things into JSON XML etc but developer will have to change things once.
I think we differ in details, but not in overall strategy.
David Lang
_______________________________________________ lumberjack-developers mailing list lumberjack-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lumberjack-developers