On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:26:33 -0600,
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
C Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, multilog still lacks, so far as I can see, the ability
to limit by both space *and* time so that you can create clear
reporting boundaries for log
Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just did a count of a couple of (smallish) log files and I found that
on average, qmail-send is logging 469 bytes per delivery and sendmail is
logging 430 bytes per delivery. FWIW, the qmail logging is piping into
logger.
My strawman conclusion?
"Tim Hunter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I right in assuming that you can use a command such as
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t !tai64nlocal
/var/log/qmail/smtpd
for logging qmail-smtpd and this will process the log through tai64nlocal
*after* completing
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:15:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just did a count of a couple of (smallish) log files and I found that
on average, qmail-send is logging 469 bytes per delivery and sendmail is
logging 430 bytes per delivery. FWIW, the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, multilog still lacks, so far as I can see, the ability to
limit by both space *and* time so that you can create clear reporting
boundaries for log summaries. I'd love to have it roll to a new log after
either one day or the size limit,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:26:33AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
If I remember correctly, Bruce Guenter wrote a patch to allow one of the
loggers to do exactly this, by having it close and reopen its log upon
receipt of a HUP or some such signal. However, I don't remember if it was
multilog
Morning,
I installed qmail and daemontools according to LWQ and the linked info on
daemontools. As a result, I'm using multilog.
QMail deliver works locally, and appears to stop and start normally.
However, the logs are not working as expected. For some reason tai64nlocal
does not appear to be
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, A Hoffman wrote:
[...] For some reason tai64nlocal
does not appear to be kicking in.
# more /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t
/var/log/qmail
# more /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log/run
Mads E Eilertsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, A Hoffman wrote:
[...] For some reason tai64nlocal
does not appear to be kicking in.
# more /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t
/var/log/qmail
#
On that note, what is an example of a startup script that includes
useful datestamping for multilog? I used the examples set forward in
section 2.8.2. 'System start-up files' in LWQ, and it is not working as I
had hoped. Thanks!
- A
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Mads E Eilertsen wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 11:20:30AM -0800, A Hoffman wrote:
On that note, what is an example of a startup script that includes useful
datestamping for multilog? I used the examples set forward in section 2.8.2.
'System start-up files' in LWQ, and it is not working as I had hoped. Thanks!
Don't
Thanks Chris. Now that begs the question of why I should use multilog
instead of syslog which does datestamp if you tell it to. It doesn't seem
beneficial to add a superflous step. I apologize if this point seems
irrelevant.
However if there is a better method, I would appreciate pointers to
From: A Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Thanks Chris. Now that begs the question of why I should use multilog
instead of syslog which does datestamp if you tell it to. It doesn't seem
beneficial to add a superflous step. I apologize if this point
A Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Chris. Now that begs the question of why I should use multilog
instead of syslog which does datestamp if you tell it to. It doesn't seem
beneficial to add a superflous step. I apologize if this point seems
irrelevant.
Syslog is a nightmare: insecure,
Thus spake A Hoffman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Thanks Chris. Now that begs the question of why I should use multilog
instead of syslog which does datestamp if you tell it to. It doesn't seem
beneficial to add a superflous step. I apologize if this point seems
irrelevant.
I knew syslog had it's
the page http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/multilog.html
and specifically the last section !processor on that page.
-Original Message-
From: A Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multilog datestamping
Thanks Chris
| In short- you can get away with logging to syslogd on low volume
| servers, but if you want to get the best performance out of your
| server or if you're running high-volume mail services you need to drop
| syslogd and move to multilog.
I might disagree with this. My mail server is fairly
A Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On that note, what is an example of a startup script that includes
useful datestamping for multilog? I used the examples set forward in
section 2.8.2. 'System start-up files' in LWQ, and it is not working as
I had hoped. Thanks!
I'm slowly converting my
Robbie Honerkamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I knew syslog had it's problems- it can drop log entries under load and
has been the source of security problems in the past. But until last
week I didn't know just how bad it was.
To be fair, some of this is caused by the fact that qmail is
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be fair, some of this is caused by the fact that qmail is
considerably more verbose in its logging than what syslog really expects
(and what programs like sendmail do).
But, to follow up to myself and give some more firm numbers, here's an
example of
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 11:17:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
To be fair, some of this is caused by the fact that qmail is considerably
more verbose in its logging than what syslog really expects (and what
programs like sendmail do).
(Hmm. Russ is a pretty smart guy so I may be wrong here,
21 matches
Mail list logo
