I imagine the journald logs are just files at the end of the day and you can just read them with some tool?
If that is your concern, you can disable compression in the journald configuration so that the contents can be read with "strings" or similar tools.
So far, I tried looking at logs from the dead system using “journalctl -D” - it seemed to work. And the way how the log files from each boot are always separate is pretty handy. Other than that, the only problems I have seen were having more to type and having to learn more commands.
Am I in for a nasty surprise?
In particular, I have just verified with "strace" that running journalctl with either "-D /var/log/journal" or "--file" option does not even open machine-id file nor a d-bus socket -- so whatever problems you had with machine-id would be gone with.
Also, when you said, that you "cp'ed the files off it", did you mean you copied off the contents of /var/log/journal? Were you able to open the files on the other machine?
Normally, Unix-like tools are not as painful as journalctl. But Poettering's interfaces are a gauntlet of unusual concepts and hidden inter-relationships, with no common examples or intuitiveness. And things like dbus make it worse, now that there are many parts of a modern Linux system that have no console interface, because nobody's written one for the particular application you need to view or change the right dbus settings. And /sys/ is literally a wilderness of random undocumented settings that are often the only interface to critical system functions.
Linux distributions are now a tiresome no-mans-land of overcomplicated mysterious crap. I'm willing to bet the major Linux distributions will be abandoned over the next decade for simpler systems that are cloud-native, mobile-friendly, and have less Kafkaesque interfaces.
You started with a strawman about caring about logs, and ended complaining about sysfs.
> I'm seriously struggling to understand the complaint here
The complaint was trying to explain a parent commenter's point about journald "They’re really nice until everything on the node is completely broken. Then they are a massive obstruction to access and understanding what went wrong due to the opaqueness."
Point: Logs are really annoying to manage on systems with journald.
Counter-point: Ship your logs somewhere else / you probably don't have these problems in real life
Counter-Counter: If we're not supposed to use these tools on our hosts, exactly why are they installed?
I would argue that logs are less annoying to manage on systems with journald, once you take the time to learn how to leverage the tools.
I would also argue that shipping mission-critical logs off-server is a worthy endeavor, regardless of logging system used.
I like journald because it lets me isolate logs for a particular unit without grepping and accidentally including output from unrelated services. It's faster to find the data that I need between time ranges rather than manually comparing time stamps.
I can count on one finger the number of times the journal has been corrupted on the servers that I manage, and it was because of hardware failure.
It’s like having a black box that forgets the last 30 seconds of the flight otherwise.
This is incredibly difficult to get right.
Most of the issues I’ve dealt with shaft the network before the filesystem.
Opening an EC2 console in AWS is still a simple and reliable way to find out what's going wrong with your instance. Wouldn't be possible if we didn't already have the convention to have the kernel, syslog, etc print to tty1.