"Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm in need of some sanity. Does a patch exist, or does anyone want to make
>one, to make multilog rotate logs based on time rather than file size?
There's a patch that causes multilog to close the current file when it
receives a certain signal, but I don't have a pointer to it.
>I hope that I don't even have to start explaining why...
It sounds like you want to, though...
>The word 'standardisation' comes to mind.
The word 'dogma' comes to my mind. Sometimes the "standard" way of
doing something is appropriate, and other times it's not. Allowing
your log files to grow without bound is probably not a good idea
unless you've got each log in its own filesystem.
>It's like comparing America
>to Australia. Why do America have to make everything back-to-front
>for us?
Such as?
>The same goes for multilog... I want to be able to archive
>logs easily, analyse them easily. Tell me how I can do that if I am
>limited by file size.
How exactly does a file size limit prevent that? Can you not make the
limit so large that it is never reached?
>A bulk e-mail that I'm not expecting will wipe
>my files out of existance.
Er, not exactly. It'll potentially flush older entries if you set the
file size/number of files too low, but most of us consider that
preferrable to filling up a filesytem and potentially breaking other
things.
>Sure I can make the number of files I keep
>bigger, but is that really a fix? More its an unnecessary hassle
>getting in the way.
Yeah, what a hassle to have to specify a command line argument
once. My heart bleeds for you. :-)
>Using tai64 time format, I kind of understand. It
>makes some degree of sense, even if it is annoying to read straight
>out.
If you find multilog so damned annoying, why do you use it? Do you
seriously expect your whining (or is it "whinging" in Australia?) to
cause somebody to write a patch?
>But size-based log rotation with no option for time? OK
>someone's been smoking some big time drugs here...
Do you always insult people you disagree with?
>Oh and before you
>say try the !processor directive, I did but to no avail...
What did you do?
What did you expect to happen?
What actually happened?
Or are you simply not interested in making an unpatched multilog work?
>There is
>probably a whole paragraph of information on it spanned across the
>Internet. Great. No examples anywhere really though...
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
-Dave
