Hi Joe,

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:40:01PM -0500, Joseph Hardeman wrote:
> Hey Chris,
> 
> What flavor of linux will you be putting syslog-ng on?  Be sure the
> syslog-ng you install can handle multi-threading of its processes, so
> version 3.0 or newer I believe, otherwise it will eat up all of 1 CPU and
> could most certainly lose logs then if you have a lot of traffic going
> through haproxy.

My experience with syslog-ng has already been extremely good since version
1.4 around 10 years ago. I remember reaching 20000 logs per second with
zero losses on a pentium-3 933 MHz. You need to tune it to use large
buffers to cover disk latency, and that's all. Syslog-ng is an excellent
piece of software, which is why I always recommend it to everyone who needs
high logging rates.

> We have it setup for one of our customers now, actually I just finished
> setting it up four days ago and I have syslog-ng splitting out logs per
> hour.  I don't really see much in the way of missing logs, if anything they
> now have more information than they were getting for the visits to their
> site from Google Analytics.
> 
> But just as an idea, using "option httplog clf" in the listen section for
> mode http, yesterday I receiving around 12G of logs from a single haproxy
> box while today they are at 4.9G and the day isn't over yet.  So today may
> end up around 10G as the west coast is now getting off of work.  And the
> clf option sends through less data than the normal option httplog so the
> amount of data is a bit lower than if you log normal logs from haproxy.

This point surprizes me a little bit because CLF logs contain the same info
with more delimiters. Maybe they compress better but I'm surprized you find
them smaller. For instance :

normal:
  Jan 13 07:52:50 pcw haproxy[839]: 127.0.0.1:56837 [13/Jan/2012:07:52:46.258] 
echo echo/<NOSRV> 0/0/0/3325/3789 200 14 - - ---- 0/0/0/0/0 0/0 "GET / 
HTTP/1.1" 
clf:
  Jan 13 07:52:34 pcw haproxy[834]: 127.0.0.1 - - [13/Jan/2012:06:52:31 +0000] 
"GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 14 "-" "-" 56835 759 "echo" "echo" "<NOSRV>" 0 0 0 2285 
2845 "----" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "-" "-" 

Regards,
Willy


Reply via email to