On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Boylan, James <[email protected]>wrote:
I had a sneaking suspicion that would be the case. I might setup a system
running the Fedora version with this setup (Fedora 20 I think?) when its
available to do some tests on exactly how it is implemented and what
possible options exist. That should help me be a bit ahead of the game for
when it finally makes it's way into CentOS.
Oh, that would be great. I admit I was so busy the past month that I didn't
even bother to try this. As a side-note, I have some replacement library
work lying around that can be preloaded and redirects logging traffic to a
diffrent socket. It's hackish, but may be needed in high performance
environments.
In any case, please keep us updated -- maybe we can craft some of the new
packages based on your findings.
I really think we need two sets of standard things: one for the low end,
where folks are happy with the journal and just would like to get e.g.
router messages into it .... and one for real logging...
well, the systemd people keep insisting that systemd is modular and you can just
not use the journal if you don't like it, maby we should have a config that
takes them at their word (and watch them scream ;-)
seriously though, what is the performance impact of going through the journal?
IMHO both are valid use cases.
agreed.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
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.
