Hello - I'm following this thread 'cause I'm somewhat interested in remote logging, but don't know my way around the internals so well, so pardon any ignorance...
> Is stickiness really better? The hostname could be > looked up once and > subsequently remembered by the SocketAppender. > Before sending a logging > event on the wire, the SocketAppender could set the > hostname (which it > keeps in its memory). The cost is a method call plus > a hash lookup followed > by a variable assignment, in other words "nada" > compared to serialization. Question here: if SocketAppender is the place where the hostname is set, what happens if you chain SocketAppenders. Event is generated on HostA, sent to HostB & filtered, then forwarded on again to HostC. Not saying this is a sensible setup, but would the SocketAppender / stickiness interaction behave such that the final destination still see HostA as the event source, or would the host/ip get reassigned by SocketAppender on the way out over the wire on HostB? > >And, yeah, not all machines have a hostname. A > co-worker was also wondering > >if they could have more than one, if they have > multiple interfaces in some > >complex corporate setting where they have one name > from the outside and > >another from the inside. I don't know. We have quite a few machines in our productive environment with multiple IPs, and multiple "apparent" hostnames for different web server instances on the same physical host. Greg __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
