On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 18:23 -0500, Alan Santos wrote:
On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Larry O'Leary
<loleary(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 20:38 +0100, Heiko W.Rupp wrote:
>> Am 17.12.2013 um 19:00 schrieb Lukas Krejci <lkrejci(a)redhat.com>:
>>> I am personally very much FOR having stacktraces in the log messages,
especially in erroneous conditions like this one (i.e. IMHO almost
>>
>> If our stacktraces would only contain relevant information I would agree.
>>
>> Spitting out the same 30 lines over and over again does not add any value.
>> A lot of what is written is stuff inside java.* . Also for above case, the
trace
>> is always the same, and leads to the place you pointed out. That trace
>> does not tell anything about the cause, which is what we would want in
>> reality.
>>
>> We may log the traces at a different level that is off by default though.
>
> I would only expect to see stack traces at DEBUG level. At any log level
> below that, I would expect the log message to provide me with the most
> relevant information in a non-Java or non-developer context.
Larry, What’s the general customer response when you ask them to reproduce the error with
DEBUG? How much additional time does that back-and-forth typically add?
Response is mostly okay. As for time added, it is very hard to say. I
would expect that in most cases it adds an additional 5 minutes of real
time. But there are the occasional issues that arise as a result of user
error causing undue frustration for the user or if the agent runs too
long and ends up rolling its log file and the important information
getting lost -- such as boot information and the messages that actually
pertain to the user's issue.
--
Larry O'Leary
https://plus.google.com/+LarryOLeary