Re: multilog datestamping

[Dave Sill]

A Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Chris. Now that begs the question of why I should use multilog
>instead of syslog which does datestamp if you tell it to. It doesn't seem
>beneficial to add a superflous step. I apologize if this point seems
>irrelevant.

Syslog is a nightmare: insecure, performance hog, unreliable, low
precision, and has no mechanism for limiting disk usage.

Multilog is secure, reliable, high-performance, high precision,
automatically limits disk usage, and includes filtering.

Syslog's only "plus" is that the timestamps are human-readable.

-Dave