* Bdale Garbee said: > In article <[🔎] 19991217200558.B1036@vip.net.pl> you wrote: > > > The workaround is not to keep an open connection to the syslog. System log > > messages should be as infrequent as possible, so there's no real penalty in > > invoking openlog/syslog/closelog each time a message is logged. > > This is a very narrow viewpoint... and your later assertion that anything which > does lots of logging should invent some new mechanism instead of using syslog > really doesn't make sense to me. The whole point of syslog is to have a Forgive me my narrowmindness, but I just think that overusing syslog (which is a common case) doesn't help anynone and only makes it harder to spot the really important messages from the logs. In my opinion (whether it is narrow-minded or not) syslog is not for logging everything but to report about events significant to the system as a whole. And how much noise is in your logs? 60%? 70%? And also - I didn't say that anyone should invent any new mechanism, I merely stated that the existing one should be used more wisely, which is not the case right now. > common way of handling logging that is sufficiently flexible and efficient > that people don't have to keep re-inventing (broken) ways of logging things. I have seen many successful implementations that DON'T use syslog but might use it if it were more flexible. You say it's flexible, and I think it's not flexible enough - the syslog granularity isn't quite that fine. That's why syslog-ng adds the ability to sort out messages using regexps, for example. regards, marek
Attachment:
pgpOqSveQNCws.pgp
Description: PGP signature