22.10.2013 13:37, David Lang:
I think that if you just document that setting global variables is racy, and as such it's not suitable for accruate counting, only for changing rsyslog behavior without a restart you should be good on the expectations front. the current documentation leans heavily on the counting aspect of things, but that can be changed. remove any suggestion of future atomic opertations and emphisise that atomic operations are not possible.
I think they are not suitable for counting at all. Only some particular cases may be possible, but I cannot visualize one currently.
being able to enable or disable e-mail messages, change what the destination address is, change the filename or patch when the box becomes active are all very useful items that I would hate to loose.
Absolutely agree. This is valid and interesting application, exactly as you describe this.
even the load balancing hack works 'well enough' once you accept that you are balancing per batch rather than per message (even if you did balance per message, you really have no idea how expensive a particulare message is going to be, so you are not really balancing the work precisely, you are only doing so statistically, and balancing per batch rather than per message is just as valid statistically)
No, it will not work in general. Suppose you have a batch of 256 and 8 actions to select. 256 divides by 8, so you will put all you load on just one server. Selecting "right" numbers is hard.
-- Pavel Levshin _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
