On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:52 PM, krad kra...@gmail.com wrote:
Ive used syslog-ng for central logging in the past. It support tcp,
encryption and logging to a db. To be honest though the most useful feature
was that you can expand log files paths to include the date and hostname.
This makes
Go for algr, i can't do wrong.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Miroslav
alexmiros...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some boxes (about 40) that I was tasked with creating a
centralized logging infrastructure for. I see in ports that we have
several different versions of rsyslog, and
] On Behalf Of Aleksandr Miroslav
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 3:09 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: which syslog??? (rsyslog? syslog-ng? or default?)
I have some boxes (about 40) that I was tasked with creating a
centralized logging infrastructure for. I see in ports that we have
I have some boxes (about 40) that I was tasked with creating a
centralized logging infrastructure for. I see in ports that we have
several different versions of rsyslog, and syslog-ng.
Is there any reason to use one or the other? Or should I just use the
syslog that come with the base OS?
daemon!
HTH
G
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Aleksandr Miroslav
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 3:09 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: which syslog??? (rsyslog? syslog-ng? or default?)
I
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: which syslog??? (rsyslog? syslog-ng? or default?)
I have some boxes (about 40) that I was tasked with creating a
centralized logging infrastructure for. I see in ports that we have
several different versions of rsyslog, and syslog-ng.
Is there any reason to use
