"Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/05/2008 08:01:37 AM:
> I think I should have been more clear. I meant a note along these lines > (and only these lines, without any more specifics). > > ### > It should be noted that this transport does not use application-level > acknowledgments. As such, there exists situations where loss of data > may occur. This protocol is not suitable if a 100% reliable solution > is desired. > ### > How about just ### It should be noted that this transport does not use application-level acknowledgments. As such, there exists situations where loss of data may occur. ### Maybe someone will find or write a good reference article explaining the application level issues with TCP/IPv4, TCP/IPv6, etc. Then an in depth explanation could be given once for all the many applications that care. People who are serious about this will need the full details. The rest deserve just the short warning. I don't want them blindly telling everyone that the syslog group has officially said that they shouldn't use syslog-tls because it isn't reliable. That is what would happen if we include that final sentence. There are unsophisticated users who routinely demand 100% reliability. I deal with them by asking about how they plan to handle power failures, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados, etc. I know that when I cared about such stuff I could quote the local power grid reliability statistics off the top of my head, and could explain our decision tree on the size of the fuel tank for the auxiliary diesel generator. I was also on top of disk drive reliability figures. This was before RAIDs and hot swap was very expensive. It turned out that downtime for disk drive problems was a major issue as you went below 10min/year of downtime. Their response to the basic disaster questions establishes what kind of response to give for applications level data loss. R Horn _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
