2016-11-22 15:35 GMT+01:00 [email protected] <[email protected]>: >>> http://blog.gerhards.net/2016/11/would-creating-simple-linux-log-file.html > > IMHO: the "issue" we're having with rsyslog is understanding the code rather > than performance. Why you'll invest time doing a "faster reader" if you > already have a "fast-enough processor"? Has anyone complained about speed? > What would be the benefit from such development? Will it increase reading > speed by 2x? 4x? 10x?
I need to clarify: IMO "lightweight" is not directly related to "fast". In fact, a lightweight agent can be somewhat slower, which is fully acceptable if uttermost speed is not the prime concern. A "lightweight" agent IMO is one that * uses as few as possible main memory * uses as few as possible CPU cycles * (boils down to "uses as few ressources as possible") * but is *sufficiently* fast for the task at hand Lightweight IMO often means throtelling down or running an agent at lower priority to not change the system footprint at all. That's quite different from rsyslog's design goal, at least since systemd journal entered the picture. An example: running on multiple threads, if done correctly, helps improve the speed. However, at the same time it often increases memory requirements and puts larger burden during burst times (simply because it handles so much more than a single-threaded one). Rainer _______________________________________________ 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.
