Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reduce rageshake log size to 1MB #3943

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 17, 2017

Conversation

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented May 17, 2017

... 50MB turned out to be quite a lot.

... 50MB turned out to be quite a lot.
@richvdh richvdh force-pushed the rav/reduce_rageshake_size branch from 968847d to 15ab173 May 17, 2017
@Kegsay

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Kegsay commented May 17, 2017

I based 50MB on having a look at general riot-web log spam over time and trying to give a month or so leeway to account for E2E failures which can occur a long time before the bug report gets submitted. Turning this down to 1MB may not be enough to diagnose these problems.

Are you really sure you want to do this?

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented May 17, 2017

well, no, but I think most people would be surprised at just how far back the logs that we are submitting go. Example: matrix-org/riot-web-rageshakes#107, which goes back over two months.

a few days seems a more sensible threshold than a couple of months to me. Sure, it won't help diagnose olm issues which lurk unnoticed for ages, but I think it's a sensible tradeoff.

@Kegsay

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Kegsay commented May 17, 2017

That's not what this PR is doing, capping based on size != capping based on time which is what it sounds like you really want to do.

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented May 17, 2017

That's not what this PR is doing, capping based on size != capping based on time which is what it sounds like you really want to do.

I appreciate that. But it's not a bad approximation and I thought this would be an easy change :/

@Kegsay

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Kegsay commented May 17, 2017

I don't think it's a good idea personally, but obviously you think it's a trade-off worth making.

LGTM

@richvdh richvdh merged commit ca3921f into develop May 17, 2017
1 of 2 checks passed
1 of 2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build failed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details
@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented May 17, 2017

I don't promise I won't change my mind and want to increase it a bit, or improve the logic as you suggest so that it is time-limited as well as/instead of size-limited.

@richvdh richvdh deleted the rav/reduce_rageshake_size branch May 17, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.