The majority of the logs are
8579992 ./bastion2 12937952 ./cvs2 27913380 ./secondary1 28753276 ./192.168.1.14 31164048 ./192.168.1.25 36747548 ./proxy1 59465200 ./192.168.1.7 78840240 ./proxy2
12937612 ./cvs2/2009 26187812 ./192.168.1.14/2009 27904380 ./secondary1/2009 30327316 ./proxy1/2009 30495152 ./192.168.1.25/2009 54589944 ./192.168.1.7/2009
Is it ok to compress older month logs 01/, 02/, 03/, 04, ?
Yeah I thought that had already been done. Would rather not compress http logs from the proxies for 2009 if it can be avoided. Sorry for the top post,on my CrackBerry :)
On 7/17/09, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
The majority of the logs are
8579992 ./bastion2 12937952 ./cvs2 27913380 ./secondary1 28753276 ./192.168.1.14 31164048 ./192.168.1.25 36747548 ./proxy1 59465200 ./192.168.1.7 78840240 ./proxy2
12937612 ./cvs2/2009 26187812 ./192.168.1.14/2009 27904380 ./secondary1/2009 30327316 ./proxy1/2009 30495152 ./192.168.1.25/2009 54589944 ./192.168.1.7/2009
Is it ok to compress older month logs 01/, 02/, 03/, 04, ?
-- Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The majority of the logs are
8579992 ./bastion2 12937952 ./cvs2 27913380 ./secondary1 28753276 ./192.168.1.14 31164048 ./192.168.1.25 36747548 ./proxy1 59465200 ./192.168.1.7 78840240 ./proxy2
12937612 ./cvs2/2009 26187812 ./192.168.1.14/2009 27904380 ./secondary1/2009 30327316 ./proxy1/2009 30495152 ./192.168.1.25/2009 54589944 ./192.168.1.7/2009
Is it ok to compress older month logs 01/, 02/, 03/, 04, ?
I'd say yes. I believe 01 and 02 are already compressed. I've ack'ed the nagios alert so we won't get any more until it's either fixed or goes critical (at 10%)
-Mike
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Mike McGrathmmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The majority of the logs are
8579992 ./bastion2 12937952 ./cvs2 27913380 ./secondary1 28753276 ./192.168.1.14 31164048 ./192.168.1.25 36747548 ./proxy1 59465200 ./192.168.1.7 78840240 ./proxy2
12937612 ./cvs2/2009 26187812 ./192.168.1.14/2009 27904380 ./secondary1/2009 30327316 ./proxy1/2009 30495152 ./192.168.1.25/2009 54589944 ./192.168.1.7/2009
Is it ok to compress older month logs 01/, 02/, 03/, 04, ?
I'd say yes. I believe 01 and 02 are already compressed. I've ack'ed the nagios alert so we won't get any more until it's either fixed or goes critical (at 10%)
Ok it looks like 01 and 02 are compressed with bzip2.
script to compress for 03 04
( for i in $(find ./*/2009/03/ -type f); do bzip2 -v $i; done ) &> ~/compress.logs
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Stephen John Smoogensmooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Mike McGrathmmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The majority of the logs are
8579992 ./bastion2 12937952 ./cvs2 27913380 ./secondary1 28753276 ./192.168.1.14 31164048 ./192.168.1.25 36747548 ./proxy1 59465200 ./192.168.1.7 78840240 ./proxy2
12937612 ./cvs2/2009 26187812 ./192.168.1.14/2009 27904380 ./secondary1/2009 30327316 ./proxy1/2009 30495152 ./192.168.1.25/2009 54589944 ./192.168.1.7/2009
Is it ok to compress older month logs 01/, 02/, 03/, 04, ?
I'd say yes. I believe 01 and 02 are already compressed. I've ack'ed the nagios alert so we won't get any more until it's either fixed or goes critical (at 10%)
Ok it looks like 01 and 02 are compressed with bzip2.
script to compress for 03 04
( for i in $(find ./*/2009/03/ -type f); do bzip2 -v $i; done ) &> ~/compress.logs
Done. Took a while longer than I expected...
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/GuestVolGroup00-root 22060924 12492712 8431280 60% / /dev/xvda1 256666 33175 210239 14% /boot tmpfs 3072000 0 3072000 0% /dev/shm /dev/xvdb1 381885660 197832520 164654484 55% /var/log
We should be good for another 2 months :)
-- Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org