>>>>> "BT" == Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BT> On 2/21/06, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>> "JM" == John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: BT> [...] 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. BT> I think you're missing John's point. BT> His point is that if 2 log switches happen while you're not looking, BT> all the stuff that was written to the log between those switches is BT> elsewhere and you'll never realize that it was ever in the log. that would entail 2 log rotations in the tailing period. logs usually rotate by time and some by size. that would be a very unusual log file to rotate by size twice in a short tail cycle. BT> This is not normally an issue. (Typically logs might rotate, say, BT> once a day. And the tailing process checks every minute or so. But BT> it theoretically can happen, and there is no good solution for it.) then it is just another point about why tailing logs isn't perfect and can't be unless the OS/FS provides support for this. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
