On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Ihnen, David wrote:
> > > 403 root 0 0 216 168 116 S 0 0.0 0.0 544:12
> syslogd
> >
> > Consider multilog instead.
>
> And svc to manage the processes too, yes. I'm seriously contemplating that.
> syslog doesn't seem to be a performance problem at this point, but it pays
> to be streamlined.
Unless you have set options on syslogd not to sync messages to disk after
each message you'll bottleneck on i/o as it fsync()s the logfile,
as a quick test kill syslogd and see if the performance of your systems
increased. On my throttled server (a 486/33 with12 MB of memory) moving
from syslogd improved delivery times by a FACTOR of 100.
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
