>>>> Sounds like there’s some significant interest to keep this feature. I >>>> would like to emphasize that if we keep this, we expect people to maintain >>>> the code, fix bugs and add missing features (such as a way to handle the >>>> orphaned logs in some reasonable way).
Agreed! Thanks Rekha -----Original Message----- From: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zw...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:27 PM To: <dev@trafficserver.apache.org> <dev@trafficserver.apache.org> Cc: us...@trafficserver.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Removing logs collation support in 7.0.0 > On Aug 23, 2016, at 1:21 PM, THOTA, REKHA <rt1...@att.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > We started using log collation feature and it seems to be working well for > us. Peter Chou from our team has recently submitted an issue in this area and > has been actively working on the fix > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-4475. > We want to continue using it and support it as needed. Can we please keep > this feature? Sounds like there’s some significant interest to keep this feature. I would like to emphasize that if we keep this, we expect people to maintain the code, fix bugs and add missing features (such as a way to handle the orphaned logs in some reasonable way). I’m encouraged to hear that there is interest in the feature, and good hope that we will see continued development efforts in this area. Cheers, — leif > > Thanks > Rekha > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Peach [mailto:jpe...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 12:56 PM > To: dev@trafficserver.apache.org > Cc: us...@trafficserver.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Removing logs collation support in 7.0.0 > > >> On Aug 23, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Yes, people in the community are allowed to vote on keeping features. > > Encouraged :) > >> Details: >> According to the Apache voting process there are binding and non-binding >> votes. The binding votes are from PMC members and are the ones that count >> officially. However, not officially, votes from the community hold a lot of >> weight. >> >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> >> >> -Bryan >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Shrihari Kalkar <shrihari.kal...@riverbed.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Okay, I would like to vote for keeping this feature if I am allowed >>> to :) >>> -0 >>> Thanks, >>> Shrihari >>> On 8/22/16, 2:35 PM, "Bryan Call" <bc...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> There are a few bugs that are opened around log collation. >>>> However, I don¹t think any are major issues. Your feedback is very >>>> important in the decision on whether to keep this feature. >>>> >>>> Simple search on bugs with ³collation² in them: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-966?filter=12338253&jql=pr >>>> o >>>> ject%2 >>>> 0%3D%20TS%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20text%20~%20 >>>> % 22coll >>>> ation%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DESC%2C%20updatedDate%20DESC >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-966?filter=12338253&jql=p >>>> r >>>> oject% >>>> 20=%20TS%20AND%20resolution%20=%20Unresolved%20AND%20text%20~%20%22 >>>> c ollati on%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DESC,%20updatedDate%20DESC> >>>> >>>> -Bryan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Shrihari Kalkar >>>>> <shrihari.kal...@riverbed.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey guys, >>>>> I really like this feature and we use it quite often. We tried >>>>> using log collation with pipes but somehow we couldn't get that to >>>>> work reliably. It would be good to have this around. Have we seen >>>>> many bugs in this area of code? Is it possible to keep this feature >>>>> around? >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Shrihari >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org <mailto:sor...@apache.org>> >>>>> Reply-To: "us...@trafficserver.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:us...@trafficserver.apache.org>" >>>>> <us...@trafficserver.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:us...@trafficserver.apache.org>> >>>>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:29 AM >>>>> To: "us...@trafficserver.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:us...@trafficserver.apache.org>" >>>>> <us...@trafficserver.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:us...@trafficserver.apache.org>>, >>>>> "dev@trafficserver.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:dev@trafficserver.apache.org>" >>>>> <dev@trafficserver.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:dev@trafficserver.apache.org>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Removing logs collation support in 7.0.0 >>>>> >>>>>> +0 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:06 PM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org >>>>>> <mailto:jpe...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Bryan Call <bryan.c...@gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:bryan.c...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a few features we are looking to remove in the ATS >>>>>>>> 7.0.0 >>>>>>> release. If you are using these features and require them, >>>>>>> please respond to this email. We also need to have people that are >>>>>>> willing >>>>>>> to invest time and fix some of the bugs for these features. Your >>>>>>> feedback is very important! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An alternative solution to log collation is to log to a pipe >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>> have an external process take care of log collation. Here is >>>>>>> the documentation for log collation: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/admin-guide/moni >>>>>>> t >>>>>>> oring/ >>>>>>> logging/log-collation.en.html >>>>>>> <https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/admin-guide/mon >>>>>>> i >>>>>>> toring >>>>>>> /logging/log-collation.en.html> >>>>>>> <https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/admin-guide/mon >>>>>>> i >>>>>>> toring >>>>>>> /logging/log-collation.en.html >>>>>>> <https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/admin-guide/mon >>>>>>> i >>>>>>> toring >>>>>>> /logging/log-collation.en.html>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proposal is to remove the configurations options, >>>>>>>> statistics, >>>>>>> and code for log collation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought I thoughi I already replied with similar substance as Leif. >>>>>>> This helped a lot when we started with ATS. It does have bugs an >>>>>>> misbehaviors (eg. orphan file handling), but I don¹t think the >>>>>>> maintenance burden is very high. +0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J >>>> >>> >> >
