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

Re: [logcheck] I hear you...



Frank Copeland wrote:
> 
> On 25 Nov 2001 16:54:27 +1100, Bernd Eckenfels <lists@lina.inka.de> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 04:28:55AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> but these green flashy pieces of junk, which might be visually
> >> pleasing, but otherwise don't do anything
> >
> > Nope, thats not true. They have the big advantage you see quickly (actually
> > you wont see errors if you are not reading line by line) if warnings and
> > errors occur. They do not need to overwite anything, you can make them
> > appended to daemon output.
> 
> None of which matters if the visual cues scroll off the screen before
> they can be seen or the cause noted (been there) or if the machine is
> booting unattended (situation normal for some of my machines) or if the
> machine is running headless (situation normal as well).
> 
> I would prefer to have failures logged and optionally mailed to the
> admin.

  why not have both and more? it's not a big deal - once init process is
organized to have something to happen it should be easy to add different
actions to be taken, each being very cheap (time/space/work wise) - you
can have visual clues, everything being logged, having admin paged (if
network & mail is up, of course:-) etc.

	erik



Reply to: