[dm-devel] [PATCH v2 11/11] multipathd: remove unhelpful startup / shutdown messages

[Benjamin Marzinski]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:30 AM Martin Wilck <mwilck at suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 19:43 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:33 PM <mwilck at suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck at suse.com>
> > >
> > > These messages are noisy in the system log without being actually
> > > helpful.
> >
> > I've actually found the "start up" and "shut down" messages useful a
> > number of times, for tracking when multipathd starts up and shuts
> > down.
>
> Makes sense ;-)
>
> Currently we see the following messages for multipathd startup and
> shutdown:
>
> Mar 11 09:30:00 bremer systemd[1]: Starting Device-Mapper Multipath Device Controller.
> Mar 11 09:30:01 bremer multipathd[363]: --------start up--------
> Mar 11 09:30:01 bremer systemd[1]: Started Device-Mapper Multipath Device Controller.
> Mar 11 09:30:01 bremer multipathd[363]: read /etc/multipath.conf
> Mar 11 09:30:01 bremer multipathd[363]: path checkers start up
> ...
> Mar 11 09:30:52 bremer systemd[1]: Stopping Device-Mapper Multipath Device Controller...
> Mar 11 09:30:52 bremer multipathd[363]: exit (signal)
> Mar 11 09:30:52 bremer multipathd[363]: --------shut down-------
> Mar 11 09:30:52 bremer systemd[1]: Stopped Device-Mapper Multipath Device Controller.
>
> To my taste, this is too much. Of course, not everyone is using
> systemd. Without systemd and with the part of my patch you acked, we'd
> be down from 9 to 3 messages. IMO either the "exit" message or the
> "shut down" message could be hidden at -v2. I suppose we could decrease
> the verbosity level of handle_signals() to -v3 instead. Would you agree
> with that?

Sure.

> > Since people generally run multipathd constantly, they rarely
> > appear more than a couple of times per boot. I would prefer if they
> > could stay.  I'm fine with removing the others.
>
> Ok, fine with me. Do you insist on the "--------", too? It's mainly
> that which bothers me. If you look at the typical boot messages of
> contemporary Linux servers, no other daemon uses this strong emphasis
> for an informational message. The informational value would be higher
> if we printed a detailed version number including HEAD commit ID, like
> other daemons do.

I'm fine with changing what the messages look like, I'd just like
something to stay there.

-Ben

> Martin
>