Nicholas, The AdoNetAppender is *already* a buffering appender, with a default batch size of (I think) 100 for performance reasons as you suggest (both for the sake of your app and the poor database server).
Buffering does mean however that if your app tanks you probably lose the log message that let you know why, hence again value of (synchronous) file logging. On 12 Oct 2015 10:47 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > I would agree that file based logging it core. I would probably not want > my web application logging to a database, for sure not each log statement. > If there was some buffering in between which batched the logs and then sent > every once in a while to the DB that would seem better, to me at least. If > I needed the logs in a database I would still probably write to a local > file and then figure a way to get the files to a central location where > they could be loaded into the database. > > Thanks, > Nick > ------------------------------ > To: dpsen...@gmail.com; log4net-user@logging.apache.org > From: piers.willi...@gmail.com > Subject: RE: unintended usage of the same configuration file > Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:27:44 +0800 > > Dominic: I’m afraid I don’t agree with any of what you said. File based > logging is a critical part of any instrumentation strategy – it’s way > faster than logging to a (typically remote) database, and gives you > somewhere to log the errors when the database is down. That’s assuming you > have a database at all of course – not all web applications even have one > (though I’d concede that’s rare). > > It’s true that web applications will typically have limited *write* > access to local disks, and that’s entirely appropriate, but they always > have some write permissions *somewhere* – even if it’s only to Temp. > Establishing a location with write permissions for logs hardly entails > ‘punching holes in permissions’. > > Finally, as best I can tell, none of this is relevant to the OP’s actual > issue, which would be just the same whether he was logging to file or to > database, because it’s a *configuration *issue. > > > > *From: *Dominik Psenner > *Sent: *Sunday, 11 October 2015 2:35 PM > *To: *Log4NET User > *Subject: *Re: unintended usage of the same configuration file > > > > > The concept behind how web applications work makes it hard to use file > appenders. A web application should not access a filesystem directly and > punching holes into permissions may not be advisable. If i had to work out > a web app i would log to the database that the web application will require > anyway. > jmtc > > On 11 Oct 2015 4:26 a.m., "tasos" <tas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello. > I'm working on a .net application and i have used this guidance > http://haacked.com/archive/2005/03/07/ConfiguringLog4NetForWebApplications.aspx/ > There is a project on which i have added in the assemblyinfo.cs > [assembly: log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator(ConfigFile = "foo1.config", > Watch = true)] > and in another one(different assembly) > [assembly: log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator(ConfigFile = "foo2.config", > Watch = true)] > My configurations are like this http://pastebin.com/UpSpwMHH > except the different output filenames > (<param name="File" value="foofilename.log"/> ) > The problem is that the assembly that uses foo1.config writes on the output > file of the file that is configured in foo2.config. > In each class i use log4net i declare as the guidance site(mentioned > above) says: > > private static readonly ILog Log = > LogManager.GetLogger(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType); > > > > Thank you in advance for your help! > > > > > > >
