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

Re: syslog.conf is utter crap?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:36:58AM +0200, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 April 2001 01:44, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > I agree. I finally realized that my logs were so huge because debian's
> > default syslog.conf puts duplicate messages in so many places.
> Is this standard for most Debian installations?
> Do most people use sysklogd? Or have they switched to syslog-ng / msyslog ?
> And do these packages have better setups?
> Please, somebody, enlighten me - if sysklogd is default, and most people run 

sysklogd is the default, so most likely the majority of debian users
use it.  

i don't know if the other loggers have better default configurations.
i really haven't seen anything that compelling about the alternative
syslogs to bother messing with them.  

> with this kind of defect logging, would there be anybody interested in me 
> trying to create a new syslog.conf? Or is this wasted effort, better spent on 

i think it would be useful.  i have always found debian's logging far
better then redhats, but the duplication is annoying. logcheck for
instance reports many `suspicious' things twice, such as firewall log

> other things (like helping with the other two packages)?
> I'm not going to do anything officially before I know that I'm not wasting my 
> time, so please speak up. If you just think that it's a good idea (to get 
> some better logging through syslog.conf) just drop me a private msg, else 
> mail the list (and don't Cc me then).

please do improve the logging, in fact i think that some policy on
where what is logged to would be useful, this way the alternative
syslogs can maintain as much consistency in where everything is

> Also, if anybody knows if there are any standards in this field, please lemme 
> know!

i doubt it.  

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgpT_vK9YAFrH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: