Logging verbosity

Larry O'Leary loleary at redhat.com
Wed Dec 18 15:04:59 UTC 2013


On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 18:23 -0500, Alan Santos wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Larry O'Leary <loleary at 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 at 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



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list