Re: Rotating mail.log daily: a problem
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:20:02PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I try to rotate the mail logs of a big mail server more often than the
> default (weekly).
>
> I added this to /etc/logrotate.d :
>
> # http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/09/msg01310.html
> # sysklogd rotates file and "weekly" is hardwired in it. We add this file
> # to override it.
>
> /var/log/mail.log /var/log/mail.info /var/log/mail.warn {
> daily
> rotate 52
> compress
> create 640 root adm
> postrotate
> /etc/init.d/sysklogd reload
> endscript
> }
>
> It works but the default rotation scheme also, and it keeps rotating
> every week (syslogd-listfiles --weekly). See May 16th, a saturday :
>
> faramir:~ % ls -alt /var/log/mail.log*
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 5098621 May 21 15:16 /var/log/mail.log
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 2912181 May 21 06:24 /var/log/mail.log.1.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 4232280 May 20 06:24 /var/log/mail.log.2.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 3352124 May 19 06:25 /var/log/mail.log.3.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 2974079 May 18 06:25 /var/log/mail.log.4.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 936179 May 17 06:25 /var/log/mail.log.5.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 4916 May 16 06:36 /var/log/mail.log.0
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 386548 May 16 06:19 /var/log/mail.log.7.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 26177210 May 15 06:15 /var/log/mail.log.8.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 7547207 May 9 06:25 /var/log/mail.log.6.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 38059962 Apr 25 06:38 /var/log/mail.log.9.gz
> -rw-r----- 1 root adm 64760921 Apr 23 06:29 /var/log/mail.log.10.gz
>
> How can I suppress the default weekly rotation (which is not managed
> by logrotate)?
>
> Debian "sarge".
If you look in /etc/cron.daily/sysklogd you'll find where it runs those
rotates... if you add -s "mail.*" to the end of the syslogd-listfiles
command you *should* find that it will stop messing with things.
So, in summary, change:
for LOG in `syslogd-listfiles`
to:
for LOG in `syslogd-listfiles -s "mail.*"`
in /etc/cron.daily/sysklogd
I Hope that helps,
--
Brett Parker
Reply to: