Randy McMurchy wrote:
Gerard's post came as a shock to me as well, so I took the opprotunity to ask him about it on IRC, since he happened to be there at the time. Evidently some flaws have been found when syslog-ng is used in a "production" type enviornment, placing a lot more load on it than what most of us probably do. Archaic has more information, but to put it in general terms, syslog-ng's handling of the logging function can significantly delay action in some cases. I'm sure we'll here more on it soon.
This I don't understand. I thought syslog-ng was the new syslog daemon of choice for LFS. If it goes away, what is destined to replace it?
I too am interested in this topic because I do use syslog-ng in a production environment. I havn't seen any problems and I've been using it for a year. The primary advantage to me is that I can use tcp for reliable service to my loghost. I don't do any formatting of messages within syslog-ng, but postprocess the logs.
-- Bruce
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
