Re: xconsole messages
>>>>> "Guy" == Guy Maor <email@example.com> writes:
Guy> On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> What is the advantage of making a named pipe and going through
>> all that when it works fine in this straightforward manner?
Guy> 1. You'll hit the filesystem less. Since you don't have a
Guy> '-' before the file, syslogd does a sync after every write.
Guy> If you do put the '-' in, you won't see the messages till the
Guy> next time those buffers get flushed; that kind of takes away
Guy> the whole point of running xconsole.
I don't understand. I see the messages that syslogd writes to
/dev/console right away, no waiting. I didn't do anything special to
make that happen.
Guy> 2. You have this nasty file in your root partition that gets
Guy> bigger and bigger. It's probably a good idea to keep
Guy> activity to your root partition to a minimum. If you suffer
Guy> some disaster, you can still boot.
I guess if you don't want log files, you can edit syslog.conf and
comment them all out. Then you won't have any 'nasty files' growing
I think that in a serious multiuser setting, the system administrator
would check the log files daily as a matter of course. He/she would
probably run some sort of perl script on them to grep out their
essential statistics, and to flag anomalies.
Most of us have no real use for the logs, except as examples to learn
from. I go through mine once a week or so, then inevitably rm and
touch them. That keeps my root partition from filling up.
I've found some accounting scripts on sunsite, but haven't played
sysadmin yet for lack of time between classes. I will, eventually.
I'm intrigued by the idea of having a perl program draw a graph for me
with GNUplot. I think that would be a cool feature, for sure.
Now my question would be: What kind of stats would a real world
sysadmin find useful? Why make a chart; who looks at them? Why?
<firstname.lastname@example.org> Portland, Oregon, USA
Linux 1.2.13 ELF