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 entries. > 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 logged. > Also, if anybody knows if there are any standards in this field, please lemme > know! i doubt it. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgp24YBwh5QKq.pgp
Description: PGP signature