On 08/07/2014 07:32 PM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
On Aug 7, 2014 9:11 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johan...@gmail.com
<mailto:johan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Arguably one of journals major/only shortcoming compared to what's
out there is it's lack the ability to send syslog messages over the
syslog network protocol but I think it's just a matter of time until
it does, since it's arguably unavoidable ( think for example
containers here and I would be amazed if submitted patches would be
rejected that would add that )
Yes, it has been mentioned a couple of times that dealing with the
various syslog protocols is the job of a syslogd, not the journal.
(That said, there already are some tools to push raw journal messages
over the network...)
Raw journals or journal only solution is not acceptable in large
environment using mixed OS and or even just mixed Linux distributions
and their releases ( think debian stable and centos7 for example ) so
it's necessary for journal to be able to "forward" the logs over the
syslog network protocol
>
> But I guess you can hack yourself around that shortcoming by turning
off persistent storage ( that is if you dont want to store logs as
well on the host ) and run something like
>
> journalctl -o short -f | nc <ip> -u 514 -w 1
>
> that avoids the problem having two "loggers" running on the same
host ( like using syslog-ng or rsyslog alongside journal ) to solve
that particular problem.
I don't understand why running two programs that provide distinct
functions is called a problem.
Host resources
I also don't understand why running *three* programs (journald,
journalctl, netcat) that only do a halfassed job compared to rsyslog
*isn't* a problem anymore...
You do realize what I proposed was a workaround right?
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
