It seems like RHN is way behind on adding rsyslog updates to the repo, so it seems like I'm more or less stuck with version 2 for now. Are there any failover/spooling/etc functionality in version 2? I'd like to increase the chance of syslog messages reaching the syslog server, even if it gets offline for a short while. I'm sure it's possible to acheive this by smart (over-)engineering while waiting for rsyslog v3 being released on RHN, but I'm all for simplicity. :)
On 2/4/09, Kenneth Holter <[email protected]> wrote: > > No prob. :) > > Then I'm even more puzzled...I've configured my rsyslog client with this > setup: > ** > > **.* @@client1.example.com:200 > $ActionExecOnlyWhenPreviousIsSuspended on > & /var/log/localbuffer > $ActionExecOnlyWhenPreviousIsSuspended off* > > > If I cut the link to the syslog-server (using iptables to emulate the > logserver being down), run "logger hello" on the client, and then after a > while attach the link (by flushing the iptable rules), I see that the hello > message pops up on the rsyslog server. So some kind of spooling or something > seems to be active. Strange. Maybe the spooling or whatever is done on TCP > level or something. Maybe the rsyslog version from RHN differs from the > "normal" versioning? > > > > > On 2/4/09, Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oops... and I just noticed you use v2. Spooling is not available in v2. > > > > Sorry for not spotting it in the first place... > > > > Rainer > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:56 AM > > > To: rsyslog-users > > > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Configuring rsyslog failover > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Holter > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:13 AM > > > > To: rsyslog-users > > > > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Configuring rsyslog failover > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quick reply. > > > > > > > > You're right, it's not a failover solution by definition. I see now > > > > that I > > > > should have outlined my needs... What I'm aiming at, at least for > > > now, > > > > is a > > > > semi-failover solution: If the syslog server (i.e. loghost) goes > > > down, > > > > the > > > > clients should simply spool the messages until the server gets back > > > > online. > > > > > > > > Back to the examples I linked to: They both seem to provide the > > > > functionality I'm looking for. Is that correct? If so: what's the > > > > difference > > > > between them? > > > > > > No! ;) As I said, #2 is a failover scenario - it does not spool but > > > rather send the messags to another (failover) server if the primary > > > fails. > > > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/4/09, Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kenneth, > > > > > > > > > > the first link does NOT describe a failover case. In the first > > > link, > > > > > data is queued while the syslogd is not available. A failover case > > > > > (described in link two) is that if one syslogd goes down, data is > > > > sent > > > > > to another. This is not done in case 1: there, messages are queued > > > > while > > > > > the syslogd is down and sent to *the same syslogd* when it is up > > > > again. > > > > > So no second syslogd involved in case 1, so this is no failover > > > > > scenario. > > > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > > > > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Holter > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:59 AM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: [rsyslog] Configuring rsyslog failover > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're running rsyslog 2.0.6 downloaded from RHN, and are about > > to > > > > set > > > > > > up > > > > > > reliability/failover. I've found two setup tutorials for this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > http://www.rsyslog.com/doc-rsyslog_reliable_forwarding.html > > > > > > 2. http://wiki.rsyslog.com/index.php/FailoverSyslogServer > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like both setups configure reliable transfer, but using > > > a > > > > > > completely different syntax. Is it so that the former one is the > > > > > syntax > > > > > > for > > > > > > newer versions of rsyslog? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Kenneth Holter > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > rsyslog mailing list > > > > > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > > > > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > rsyslog mailing list > > > > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > > > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > rsyslog mailing list > > > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rsyslog mailing list > > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > _______________________________________________ > > rsyslog mailing list > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > > > _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
