On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:21:45PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:07:40AM -0800, Peter C. Norton wrote: > > There are sometimes good reasons to log to stderr instead of syslog. > > syslog is slow, loses messages, inflexable, and can introduce delays > > and huge volumes of crap to the disk. Using stderr loggers can > > filter, or do things like rotate logs actively, etc. > > OTOH, syslog makes it a lot easier to have unified systems for log rotation > etc. -- and I don't really see what you mean by "inflexible". I'd rather have > it all in one place than inventing a thousand new systems for (say) remote > logging.
Yes, it does, and there's nothing wrong with having a verbose logging sequence and process doing the equivelant of (for production) grep -v '(unimportant_messages)' | logger -p kern.err > Of course, having both isn't bad. No, its not. -Peter -- The 5 year plan: In five years we'll make up another plan. Or just re-use this one. _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
