My bad. I meant that both actions are within the same main implied ruleset as far as I understand the legacy format. Anyway, just to be on the safe side, I'd do a separate "output" ruleset with its own queue and within that ruleset I'd do the output action. That does work. I have several dozens hosts working like that.
On 18 February 2022 22:51:54 CET, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Mariusz Kruk via rsyslog wrote: > >> I'm not fully sure, however, since you use the legacy config format what's >> the interaction between both actions within the same queue. In order to be >> sure to have proper queueing _on the forwarding action_ I'd do a separate >> queue for this omfwd (or omrelp or whatever you're gonna use in the end) >> action alone. > >you can't have one queue for multiple actions, you can have a queue on a >ruleset >that contains multiple actions, but a queue on one action is only on that one >action. > >This is one of the reasons that the legacy format is discouraged for this sort >of thing. In the new format where the queue is part of the action() statement, >it is very clear that the queue is only on that action, but in the legacy >format, even though the behavior is the same (the queue is only on one >action), >it reads as if the queue could/should apply to multiple actions. > >David Lang -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list https://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.
