Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA06439; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 10:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [204.62.130.91]) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA06432 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 10:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6040 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 1997 17:05:54 -0000 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Dean Gaudet To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: reliable piped logs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org syslog over the net uses UDP and is therefore unreliable. It depends on what you want out of it really. Cisco routers log a message number with each log message, going up 1 by 1, so you can guess how many messages you've lost. Under heavy loads it's not atypical to see sequences of dropped messages. You could do the same thing with an external log program because it has the opportunity to sequence the messages. Dean On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Randy Terbush wrote: > > Scattering access logs around several machines is a bigger mess > > IMO. There has got to be a way to efficiently log requests over the > > network to one (or two) central server(s). I'm skeptical about > > syslog which is why the idea of a forked apache server at startup > > with the responsibility of collecting log data from the children > > and logging the info back to some central repository is interesting. > > Exactly whats so bad about syslog? > > ---/dev/il > >