Please post your config, that makes it easier for me ;). I think I know where this stems back from - we had two time calls inside rsyslog done, which has been removed in the experimental "perf" git branch.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luigi Perroti > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:22 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Subseconds in timereported and timegenerated > > Here's a better screenshot: > http://imagebin.ca/view/8p8hSnT.html > > Everything is happening on the same machine. > I have these modules loaded: imfile, imuxsock, imklog, ommysql. > The php-fpm entries are read from a log file by imfile. > > Right now I'm trying out 3.21.5 but I think I had already seen this > behaviour on 3.21.3 but I'm not too sure about the version number. > > Luigi > > On 10/1/08, Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a quick note while working on a bigger thing: Is the sent > timestamp > > form an instance that received data via the network (data that > contained > > a high-precision timestamp). Also, which version are you using? > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luigi Perroti > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:01 PM > >> To: rsyslog-users > >> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Subseconds in timereported and timegenerated > >> > >> Thanks for the thorough explanation but I'm afraid that I still > don't > >> understand why I'm seeing this: > >> > >> http://imagebin.ca/view/2EknmP0.html > >> > >> This is how the columns are populated: > >> sent <- %timereported:::date-mysql% > >> sent_subseconds <- %timereported:::date-subseconds% > >> received_by_rsyslog <- %timegenerated:::date-mysql% > >> received_subseconds <- %timegenerated:::date-subseconds% > >> > >> Most probably I didn't get the difference between timereported and > >> timegenerated. > >> Meaning that I should just switch the sent* and received* columns > and > >> that nothing is wrong with Rsyslog. > >> > >> I'd be great if you could could confirm this scenario, thanks for > your > >> time! > >> > >> Regards, > >> Luigi > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rsyslog mailing list > >> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > >> http://www.rsyslog.com > > _______________________________________________ > > rsyslog mailing list > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > http://www.rsyslog.com _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
