Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users: > 15.12.2024 03:07, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > > Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users: > ... > >> Today systemd plays major role in linux, and linux plays major role in the > >> IT world. And while some its ideas are questionable or may look weird, > >> some > >> are interesting. And logging is one of them: it offers a trivial logging > >> capability to all services it starts, by writing to stdout or stderr > >> (configurable, both by default). The rest - adding timestamp, tag[pid], > >> etc - is done by systemd and is the result is written to the log. Priority > >> is recognized too at the beginning of the line. > > > > It also sucks raw eggs at doing this, to the point that I was > > motivated to add a postlogd service to make Postfix logging reliable > > again. > > Oh. I wondered why postlogd has been introduced. > > From the design, syslog-compatible logging in systemd should be more reliable > than for traditional syslog, - namely, it should survive syslogd restart, > because it is the service manager (pid1) process who keeps /dev/log open, > in a way similar to how master(8) in postfix keeps its private/foo sockets > open, across services restart. So it does not require restart of other > services who performs logging, and does not need extra sockets in chroot. > > All the rest should work exactly the same as with traditional syslog. > > What was so unreliable in there?
Oh, it is wonderful for laptops. On a busy server, it is known to discard events and to use more resources. No-one carea about the resources, with 16-core CPUs and SSDs. Wietse _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org