[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bind and syslog

* Bdale Garbee said:
> In article <19991214104840.A17293@vip.net.pl> you wrote:
> > perhaps it would be better to just make the
> > syslogd daemons restart all "affected" programs when doing an upgrade and/or
> > restarting the syslog daemon?
> That's evil.  Some daemons really want to be long-running regardless of what
> is going on around them, like ntpd.
Yes, that's correct. And losing connection to syslog is a bug of the program
in question.
> I can't help but ask...
> If the server needs to be so stable that bouncing named is considered harmful,
> what are you doing upgrading syslogd?
I wasn't talking about MY server - it has bind, but the database it manages
isn't big, so the reload time doesn't matter. I am merely annoyed that I
can't see bind messages in the log files anymore just because syslog has
been upgraded. They are spilled all over the console - not very useful, I
hope you agree with that. Also, if syslog happens to have a bug (and there
have been such cases) one is better off upgrading it, right? Another thing
is, that many people now will want to use syslog-ng which is (IMO) better,
more secure and reliable than the other one. Yet another thing is that the
syslog protocol is not meant to be persistent and error resistant. The
application isn't guaranteed that the daemon will be running all the time,
that the connection won't break, that the message will be written anywhere
at all. That's why any syslog transaction should be open/write/close and not
open/write/write/write/.../close. An application SHOULD NOT depend on the
assumption that syslogd will run all the time.


Attachment: pgpz95Q7KgVnM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: