You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2015/12/28 09:13:28 UTC

log4j-cloud no longer adhered to

I realize this is probably not for this list but I wonder if anybody else
has seen this. We are seeing on several installations that log4j stopped
rotating files in /var/log/cloudstack/management for no obvious reason.
Disks are not full and no apparent changes (TM) were done on the systems at
the time of the first occurence of the system.

Has anybody seen this too?

-- 
Daan

Re: log4j-cloud no longer adhered to

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Erik, it turned out that the rights on the log dir had changed from under
us.
root:cloud and 755. either cloud:cloud or 775 will work. What caused the
change is not clear yet but I suspect a certain species of mammals.


On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Den mandag 28. desember 2015 skrev Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> følgende:
>
> > I realize this is probably not for this list but I wonder if anybody else
> > has seen this. We are seeing on several installations that log4j stopped
> > rotating files in /var/log/cloudstack/management for no obvious reason.
> > Disks are not full and no apparent changes (TM) were done on the systems
> at
> > the time of the first occurence of the system.
> >
> > Has anybody seen this too?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, not sure which versions i have seen it in, but i definately have seen
> it.
>
> --
> Erik
>



-- 
Daan

Re: log4j-cloud no longer adhered to

Posted by Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>.
Den mandag 28. desember 2015 skrev Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
følgende:

> I realize this is probably not for this list but I wonder if anybody else
> has seen this. We are seeing on several installations that log4j stopped
> rotating files in /var/log/cloudstack/management for no obvious reason.
> Disks are not full and no apparent changes (TM) were done on the systems at
> the time of the first occurence of the system.
>
> Has anybody seen this too?
>
>

Yes, not sure which versions i have seen it in, but i definately have seen
it.

-- 
Erik