> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Envoy� : mercredi 17 novembre 2004 12:44
> � : Log4J Users List
> Objet : Re: multiple VM on same RollingFileAppender
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jeremie,
> 
> I have recently been dealing with this same issue, so I 
> believe that I can definitively say that it does not work. At 
> least not on a Windows system. And it really makes sense that 
> it wouldn't. Normally log4j is able to synchronize writes to 
> a log file, even from different threads. But when those 
> writes are coming from different VMs, you must depend on the 
> OS to order the file accesses. It does not work; in fact our 
> log file was basically useless. Another problem that was 
> caused by this is that the log file doesn't roll over 
> properly; the log file file.log never rolled to file.log.1, 
> although if there was a file.log.x it would roll to file.log.x+1.
> 
> Our solution was to use the PropertyConfigurator so that as 
> each application starts up (before writing any log messages) 
> it causes initialition of log4j. We then iterate through the 
> appenders until we find the file appender. We modify the name 
> of the file for the appender so that each application writes 
> to it's own log file, although they all use the same config 
> file. With this simple method, everything is now working properly.

I was also thinking of adding in file names a VM identifier, to have one
file by VM, but I was thinking of extending the FileAppender. Your
PropertyConfigurator stuff is interesting...

Thanks...

> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                                    
>                       J�r�mie LOPEZ                           
>                                                                    
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>            To:      
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                 
>            
>                                                cc:            
>                                                                    
>                       11/17/2004 04:30         Subject: 
> multiple VM on same RollingFileAppender                       
>            
>                       AM                                      
>                                                                    
>                       Please respond                          
>                                                                    
>                       to "Log4J Users                         
>                                                                    
>                       List"                                   
>                                                                    
>                                                               
>                                                                    
>                                                               
>                                                                    
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've heard of problems with previous versions of Log4J when 
> multiple VM (using the same configuration) were logging in 
> the same RollingFileAppender, like loss of messages at roll 
> time (I wasn't able to find this problem in the bug database)...
> 
> Does the problem remain? In other words, has someone some 
> experience of logging from multiple VM in the same 
> (Daily)RollingFileAppender and does it work well?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> 
> J�r�mie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message contains information from Equifax Inc. which may 
> be confidential and privileged.  If you are not an intended 
> recipient, please refrain from any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of this information and note that such 
> actions are prohibited.  If you have received this 
> transmission in error, please notify by e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Reply via email to