Re: Followup: Syslog
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 01:43:38AM +0200, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote:
> > the cruft comment was to point out that it is easier to extend. just like
> > any other software, time and modifications gather around cruft, which makes
> > the program harder to understand, harder to modify and slower. (no, this
> > does not mean that sysklogd is slow)
>
> Yep - again this is hearsay, but I've heard that msyslog wasn't as reliable
> as sysklogd. What I want above all is to make sure /everything/ gets logged,
> so no messages are "forgotten" or discarded. If msyslog has made some radical
> changes, chances are it will have more bugs.
i never got to test msyslog on a system where i really followed all logs what
happends and where. I just wanted to try out the mysql plugin, which i wanted
to try and use on a centralized log management (it's easier to 'SELECT' than to
grep)
and i do remember mysql plugin causing some weird trouble at the time, i had to
recompile it a few times to make it work.
> I know, I'm difficult. But I'm also paranoid, and I want my logging to be
> perfect :)
paranoid is good, paranoid is good.. now who did you say you were?
--
-< Sami Haahtinen >-
-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1 F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-
Reply to: