Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
Greg Schafer wrote: > Indeed, but IMHO some of the Fedora rationale is questionable ie: "dead > upstream" is not quite true. That is, if you can believe the sysklogd > maintainer :-) > > http://lists.infodrom.org/infodrom-sysklogd/2007/0011.html A new release has been made after 6 years. Shock! sysklogd-1.5 is up on the download site. No release announcement yet that I could see. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
Dan Nicholson wrote: > I just read that Fedora has decided to take the plunge and replace > sysklogd as their default syslog. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue94#head-f55df1c4e39b27afc053b435a85088e5aec25a84 > > Anyway, they've decided to use rsyslog since it maintains a compatible > interface to sysklogd and the conf file wouldn't have to change. > > http://www.rsyslog.com/ > > I haven't looked into it yet, but it seems promising and active. Indeed, but IMHO some of the Fedora rationale is questionable ie: "dead upstream" is not quite true. That is, if you can believe the sysklogd maintainer :-) http://lists.infodrom.org/infodrom-sysklogd/2007/0011.html Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
On 5/22/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > Just to add to this, anduin has been running with syslog-ng from the > > beginning and it has never had a problem. > > Here's a relevant post: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-February/050643.html > > But AFAICT the sysklogd maintainership hasn't really improved.. Not that > that's a huge problem. After all, what we currently have works reasonable > well. I just read that Fedora has decided to take the plunge and replace sysklogd as their default syslog. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue94#head-f55df1c4e39b27afc053b435a85088e5aec25a84 Anyway, they've decided to use rsyslog since it maintains a compatible interface to sysklogd and the conf file wouldn't have to change. http://www.rsyslog.com/ I haven't looked into it yet, but it seems promising and active. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 01:36:02 Greg Schafer wrote: > Here's a relevant post: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-February/050643.html But how much of that is still valid? With the latest 2.x of syslog-ng, is it still asynchronous? Based my experiences and others, I don't think it's a problem anymore. The argument about chroot is bogus as you need patches for sysklogd to do that. It's not 'base functionality' that we're losing. I guess the comment about simplicity is still valid. But hell, syslog-ng is at least actively developed :) -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 http://doug.hunley.homeip.net I don't pirate MS software. It wouldn't be worth the price.. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Just to add to this, anduin has been running with syslog-ng from the > beginning and it has never had a problem. Here's a relevant post: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-February/050643.html But AFAICT the sysklogd maintainership hasn't really improved.. Not that that's a huge problem. After all, what we currently have works reasonable well. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
Justin R. Knierim wrote: > Robert Connolly wrote: >> Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load, >> servers can't use it. > I haven't had problems with either packages myself, syslog-ng was > perfectly fine on my dedicateds. Actually at work, we have 2000 shared > hosting servers hosting 500,000 domains running debian sarge, all of > them run syslog-ng with no problems at all. Of course there could be > something I don't know about where syslog-ng lacks. Just to add to this, anduin has been running with syslog-ng from the beginning and it has never had a problem. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
Robert Connolly wrote: > Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load, > servers can't use it. I haven't had problems with either packages myself, syslog-ng was perfectly fine on my dedicateds. Actually at work, we have 2000 shared hosting servers hosting 500,000 domains running debian sarge, all of them run syslog-ng with no problems at all. Of course there could be something I don't know about where syslog-ng lacks. Justin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
Robert Connolly wrote: > Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load, > servers can't use it. Sorry - dsa.physics.usu.ru (an old Pentium-166) logs every SYN and FIN packet going through its NAT with iptables and syslog-ng, and works just fine for two full classrooms. But it is Debian, not LFS. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
On Tuesday May 22 2007 02:24:44 pm Douglas J Hunley wrote: > On Monday 21 May 2007 16:08:02 Robert Connolly wrote: > > Changes to linux-2.6's printk, and possible other things, have broken > > klogd's EIP translation. There are no patches available to fix klogd. > > Which in my mind just says it's time to switch to syslog-ng and dump plain > old syslog and klogd. Is there any real reason not to? Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load, servers can't use it. And from what I read on google, it looks like syslog-ng has disabled klogd all together because of the same issue that affects sysklogd. robert pgpYdae69iOs7.pgp Description: PGP signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
time for syslog-ng? (was Re: klogd)
On Monday 21 May 2007 16:08:02 Robert Connolly wrote: > Changes to linux-2.6's printk, and possible other things, have broken > klogd's EIP translation. There are no patches available to fix klogd. Which in my mind just says it's time to switch to syslog-ng and dump plain old syslog and klogd. Is there any real reason not to? -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 http://doug.hunley.homeip.net Don't walk when you can run -- Anti- Murphy's Laws n°14 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
