On 2/21/06, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "JM" == John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > JM> Of course, detecting that a log switch of some sort has occurred > JM> doesn't ensure that you will be able to tell if more than one > JM> has occurred "very quickly" (from your frame of reference - > JM> that might mean that your tailing program got paused for a > JM> long time instead). > > well, most tailing doesn't care about how much has changed. tailing just > wants to find and return the appended text. whether it returns large > chunks or many lines isn't a function of the log file but of the tailing > code.
I think you're missing John's point. His point is that if 2 log switches happen while you're not looking, all the stuff that was written to the log between those switches is elsewhere and you'll never realize that it was ever in the log. This is not normally an issue. (Typically logs might rotate, say, once a day. And the tailing process checks every minute or so. But it theoretically can happen, and there is no good solution for it.) Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
