On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 01:18:37AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: > >>>>> "JM" == John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > JM> Of course, detecting that a log switch of some sort has occurred > JM> doesn't ensure that you will be able to tell if more than one > JM> has occurred "very quickly" (from your frame of reference - > JM> that might mean that your tailing program got paused for a > JM> long time instead). > > well, most tailing doesn't care about how much has changed. tailing just > wants to find and return the appended text. whether it returns large > chunks or many lines isn't a function of the log file but of the tailing > code.
Yes, but normally after a log switch you have to print everything that was added to the original log plus everything that has been written to the new log. After a double log switch though, unless you know about the naming conventions used for the switched logs and discover *both* new logs, you'll only print what was appended to the original log plus what is in the current log while missing all of the intervening content of the middle log file. -- _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
