Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

When monitoring /var/log/journal/remote events are missed when two remote hosts send messages at the same time (updates)

Open
#134 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Newbie friendliness
35/100
Issue type
Bug
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Stale
Tech stack
linux, python
Domain
observability

Research direction

Start with the journal.Reader polling example, especially seek_tail(), get_previous(), get_events(), iteration, and process(). Reproduce simultaneous writes from two clients and compare the event counter with journalctl -D /var/log/journal/remote/; done means explaining or correcting the missed-event behavior and confirming that all records are observed.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

Context

  • 1 x log server (VM on Apple M2)
  • 2 x log client (VM on Apple M2)
  • Using systemd-journal-remote on server (http)
  • Using systemd-journal-upload on clients (http)

Testing Method
We first cleanup the server with:

rm /var/log/journal/remote/*

On each client we run (side by side / simultaneously:

for x in {1..10000}; do echo "EVENT $x" | logger ; done

So we expect 20,000 records on the server, which we validate:

root@log-server:/home/ansible# journalctl -D /var/log/journal/remote/ --no-pager | grep -v Boot | wc -l
20000

I've tested this many times to confirm that the systemd-journal-remote/upload mechanism is OK.

The failing code

import select
from systemd import journal

 j = journal.Reader(path="/var/log/journal/remote")
 j.seek_tail()
 j.get_previous() # prevent wrap around

 p = select.poll()
 p.register(j, j.get_events())

 print("Starting....")
 event_counter = 0
 while p.poll():
      for x in j:
          event_counter += 1
      if j.process() != journal.APPEND:
          print("...WAITING....")
      else:
          print(f"Event counter: {event_counter}")

First of all, I'm not sure if this code is right. If I've made a glaring mistake, I apologise in advance for this report.

That said, I get correct results if I run my '10K log generator command' on one client at a time.

Event counter: 9915
Event counter: 9933
Event counter: 9945
Event counter: 9950
Event counter: 9987
Event counter: 10000

If I run the command at the same time on each client at once, I would expect 20K records, but it gets nowhere near that:

Event counter: 10228
Event counter: 10228
Event counter: 10228
Event counter: 10228
Event counter: 10228
Event counter: 10228
Event counter: 10228

In this example I'm missing almost half of all expected events. Yet I can confirm on the log server with the 'journalctl' command that there are actually 20K log records stored on the server.

Even if I test with just 1K events per client and run that simultaneously it's also clearly visible:

Event counter: 1096
Event counter: 1141
Event counter: 1215
Event counter: 1430

Happy to run any additional tests if that helps.
If I made a huge mistake, please let me know.

Update 1
I've been testing this issue on virtual machines on my mac.
I've also a few physical x86 micro pc's and the issue is the same.
Rate-limiting the logging with sleep .01 doesn't impact the result.

Question, is python-systemd built to handle remote logging from multiple clients through polling?

Dominant language
C
Stars
522
Forks
79
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from systemd/python-systemd

All issues in systemd/python-systemd

Similar issues

More C issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.