| Summary: | systemd: prevent broken apps from spamming the journal | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Plasma] plasmashell | Reporter: | Peter Eszlari <peter.eszlari> |
| Component: | Startup process | Assignee: | Plasma Bugs List <plasma-bugs-null> |
| Status: | RESOLVED UPSTREAM | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | kde, pallaswept |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | 6.1.5 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 1.0 | ||
| Platform: | Other | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
Peter Eszlari
2024-10-13 05:19:52 UTC
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/journald.conf.html From the documentation, the global defaults are: RateLimitIntervalSec=30s RateLimitBurst=10000 (+ disk space multiplier) 10000+ messages in 30s seems quite high to me, but I guess this isn't strictly a bug then. Maybe systemd should add a warning limit setting and send a notification. (In reply to Peter Eszlari from comment #1) > 10000+ messages in 30s seems quite high to me, but I guess this isn't strictly a bug then. Hi Peter! I've been bitten by this issue quite a few times. A single errant app can render my entire journal un-usable, but of course, I won't know of it until much later when I actually need to read the journal, and effectively can't, because it's so big that it can take hours to open it. I hadn't had the time to chase that bug yet, so I'm glad you did, and I just stumbled across it. Until now, I've been deleting my logs and wondering what was in them. Knowing that there is actually a rate limiter, I'm of the very strong opinion that it's set far, far too loosely by default, and I doubt very much that this is intentional behaviour, that normal usage can effectively break the journal entirely... so maybe it really is a bug. I think this should be reported upstream, so they can decide if that's how they wanted it to act. I don't want to hijack your issue, so let me know if you'd rather do it, or if you'd rather not, and I'll do it :) In the meantime, I'll modify the config and give you my thanks for looking into this! (In reply to pallaswept from comment #2) > I think this should be reported upstream, so they can decide if that's how > they wanted it to act. I don't want to hijack your issue, so let me know if > you'd rather do it, or if you'd rather not, and I'll do it :) I already did: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/34753 (In reply to Peter Eszlari from comment #3) > I already did: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/34753 Nice one Peter. I'll follow up over there. Thanks heaps for your help and for looking into this. Now I can knock one more item off my "I'll deal with that one later" list :) |