Re: Question/possible bug on LDM 6.011

• To: Gilbert Sebenste <sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: Question/possible bug on LDM 6.011
• From: Steve Emmerson <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:52:15 -0600

Gilbert,

>Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:45:09 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Gilbert Sebenste <sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Steve Emmerson <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Question/possible bug on LDM 6.011 

The above message contained the following:

> Rats. I'm sorry, I forgot. Well, to be honest...there's nothing to see. 
> Basically, the LDM logs looked normal through the entire event (they got 
> erased last night). No errors, nothing to indicate that things had gone 
> wrong, except for the fact that data had stopped coming in.

There should have been entries from exiting, receiving LDM sub-processes
on why they exited.  Such entries might have been useful.

If you're keeping only one days worth of log files, then I suggest that
you increase that number.  With all our testing, we keep 14 log files
around.  I believe the default number is 4.

Regards,
Steve Emmerson

• References:
  • Re: Question/possible bug on LDM 6.011
    • From: Gilbert Sebenste