On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Bill Carlson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > Syslog is unreliable.
> We've heard this again and again. Any specifics?
over the network the transport is UDP, and these are not acknowldged so if
they are kost who knows?
the same really applies to messages logged locally: if syslogd isn't
running what happens to the messages? (They disappear into the aether) if
it is running then things slow down whilst te data is properly written.
> Is it an implementation problem or just the way syslog works, period?
the protocol.
> I for one am not liking having my logs spread all over machines and in
> multiple directories to boot. Makes things like a log host and log
> checking very tedious to setup.
threr is nothig stopping you from setting up multilog to log into
subdirectories on the machine in one location (here they all end up in
/var/log/service-name/files)
> http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/admin.html#multilog complains that syslog
> drops entries under high load, but no specifics.
unless there are vendor extensions each message gets flushed to the disk,
which pauses the syslogd process whilst both metadata and real data are
synced to disk... it's really horrible on system performance, sapping upto
90% of the system resources...
okay, so multlog doesn't make the same guaranteed write-to disk
performance that syslogd does but something just are not that critical.
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 ||
