On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 12:31:53PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have you done any comparisons (performance or feature)
> of qfilelog vs. multilog vs. cyclog?
Well, let's try.
Performance:
- qfilelog, multilog, and cyclog all read messages from stdin and write
to a single file at a time, using fairly low-level IO commands and no
fsync's, so their performance is going to be close to each other (and
very fast). To compare, syslog reads messages through a relatively
complex input mechanism, and writes to a set of files at once,
fsync'ing them all by default. In its default mode, it's quite slow.
Features:
- qfilelog and syslog do no file size limiting. multilog and cyclog
limit the total size of the log files in a directory.
- qfilelog and syslog do no file rotation, but can be integrated with
tools like logrotate to accomplish this. It is difficult (but not
impossible) to integrate multilog or cyclog with logrotate, but they
already do log rotation of another kind internally.
- Only multilog has built-in hooks to filter the logs through an
external program. If you need to do this with qfilelog or syslog,
just rotate the file over and filter the (now unchanging) rotated
file.
- Only syslog can (currently) log from programs that use the syslog
interface. I suppose one could build a compatible front end that
reads from /dev/log, but it doesn't exist yet...
I think that's it.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
