On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
I am mostly with Radu on this topic. I think there are some use cases
where it really would be advantageous to submit a larger batch, even
if this means waiting. True, these use cases were very seldom in the
early days of rsyslog and may still be, but I think it's something one
might validly want.
The thought hit me that we are loking at this wrong.
The problem is overloading the receiver with too many small batches.
rather than trying to define batch size, isn't what we really want to have is a
limit on how many batches we send in a given timeframe? possibly with a 'escape
clause' that says tht if we are sending maxbatch size messages for the entire
timeframe we do something (spawn a new sending thread, temporarily allow higher
sending rates, or just let the backlog accumulate are all valid choices under
different conditions)
thoughts?
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.
