Johnny Tan wrote:
I'm definitely all for stable, non-broken software even if it lags
behind -- even way behind.
in the case of rsyslog, thats not the case :D I had a play with the 3.x
tree today, and it *looks* ok to me. So might as well inflict it upon
everyone else considering its in the Testing Repo, no sane person will
use it in Production. Right ?
I shall have updated packages in a couple of days, prolly over the
weekend. The package queue is quite long at the moment.
But I'm specifically interested in rsyslog v3 for the disk-assisted
buffering.
Basically, I want to be able to log locally AND remotely. AFAICT, I have
to move to v3 to get this feature.
err, really ? you could do that with conventional syslog too.
Do you use it for central logging? And if you do, how do you mitigate
the risk of data loss if the clients can't contact the server?
you can syslog to a machine and it can syslog to another machine....
also, running over tcp is nicer, since you atleast now get a chance to
do something about bits that dont make it.
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
