Hello, Any suggestion on timestamps? Need help Thanks, F. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kurien, > Im using rsyslogd to print messages the log i have shared is from syslog. > Best Regards, > Muhammad Faisal > > Disclaimer: > Information in this e-mail and attachments is confidential and may be > legally privileged. Only intended recipients are authorized to use it. > If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all > copies of the message from your system and notify the sender > immediately by return e-mail. I'm neither liable for incomplete > transmission of the information in this communication nor for damage > caused by any virus transmitted through this e-mail. > > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:22 PM, V Kurien <kurien.varugis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Which printer are you using? I see timestamps using both gprint and >> syslog on my system. The output snippet I sent was a syslog message. >> >> And did the procfs parameters show up post kernel upgrade? >> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The kernel upgraded to 3.10, timestamp was required a newer kernel. >>> But still no timestamps in the logs: >>> >>> Mar 16 13:58:11 wc01 ulogd[4022]: [NEW] ORIG: SRC=172.16.50.17 >>> DST=192.168.1.1 PROTO=TCP SPT=17012 DPT=5222 PKTS=0 BYTES=0 , REPLY: >>> SRC=192.168.1.1 DST=192.168.2.1 PROTO=TCP SPT=5222 DPT=17012 PKTS=0 >>> BYTES=0 >>> Best Regards, >>> Muhammad Faisal >>> >>> Disclaimer: >>> Information in this e-mail and attachments is confidential and may be >>> legally privileged. Only intended recipients are authorized to use it. >>> If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all >>> copies of the message from your system and notify the sender >>> immediately by return e-mail. I'm neither liable for incomplete >>> transmission of the information in this communication nor for damage >>> caused by any virus transmitted through this e-mail. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Yes, >>>> >>>> [root@wc01 ~]# modprobe nf_conntrack_netlink >>>> [root@wc01 ~]# modprobe nf_conntrack_ipv4 >>>> [root@wc01 ~]# echo "1"> /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp >>>> -bash: /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp: No such file or directory >>>> [root@wc01 ~]# >>>> >>>> CentOS 6.8 >>>> [root@wc01 ~]# uname -a >>>> Linux wc01 2.6.32-642.15.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Feb 24 14:31:22 UTC >>>> 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Muhammad Faisal >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: >>>> Information in this e-mail and attachments is confidential and may be >>>> legally privileged. Only intended recipients are authorized to use it. >>>> If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all >>>> copies of the message from your system and notify the sender >>>> immediately by return e-mail. I'm neither liable for incomplete >>>> transmission of the information in this communication nor for damage >>>> caused by any virus transmitted through this e-mail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:21 PM, V Kurien <kurien.varugis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Hmm. Odd. What OS are you on? I am on U16.04. How important are the >>>>> timestamps to you? Note that the log collector can add timestamps as >>>>> well. >>>>> >>>>> Did you modprobe appropriately? >>>>> modprobe nf_conntrack_netlink >>>>> modprobe nf_conntrack_ipv4 >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Kurien, >>>>>> Please see the nf_conntrack_timestamp giving error is it the correct command? >>>>>> >>>>>> [root@wc01 ~]# /bin/echo "1"> /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp >>>>>> -bash: /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp: No such file or directory >>>>>> [root@wc01 ~]# cat /proc/sys >>>>>> sys/ sysrq-trigger sysvipc/ >>>>>> [root@wc01 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_ >>>>>> nf_conntrack_acct >>>>>> nf_conntrack_buckets >>>>>> nf_conntrack_checksum >>>>>> nf_conntrack_count >>>>>> nf_conntrack_events >>>>>> nf_conntrack_events_retry_timeout >>>>>> nf_conntrack_expect_max >>>>>> nf_conntrack_generic_timeout >>>>>> nf_conntrack_icmp_timeout >>>>>> nf_conntrack_log_invalid >>>>>> nf_conntrack_max >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_be_liberal >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_loose >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_max_retrans >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_close >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_close_wait >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_fin_wait >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_last_ack >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_max_retrans >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_syn_recv >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_syn_sent >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_time_wait >>>>>> nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_unacknowledged >>>>>> nf_conntrack_udp_timeout >>>>>> nf_conntrack_udp_timeout_stream >>>>>> nf_log/ >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Muhammad Faisal >>>>>> >>>>>> Disclaimer: >>>>>> Information in this e-mail and attachments is confidential and may be >>>>>> legally privileged. Only intended recipients are authorized to use it. >>>>>> If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all >>>>>> copies of the message from your system and notify the sender >>>>>> immediately by return e-mail. I'm neither liable for incomplete >>>>>> transmission of the information in this communication nor for damage >>>>>> caused by any virus transmitted through this e-mail. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:04 AM, V Kurien <kurien.varugis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> Don't you have to enable timestamp and byte logging support? >>>>>>> /bin/echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct >>>>>>> /bin/echo "1"> /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> I would like to understand is this a feature or a possible bug that >>>>>>>> Year info is missing from the ulogd2 output. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mar 11 15:55:59 wc01 ulogd[14289]: [NEW] ORIG: SRC=5.55.22.172 >>>>>>>> DST=192.168.1.3 PROTO=TCP SPT=2083 DPT=5158 PKTS=0 BYTES=0 , REPLY: >>>>>>>> SRC=192.168.1.3 DST=5.55.22.172 PROTO=TCP SPT=5158 DPT=2083 PKTS=0 >>>>>>>> BYTES=0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>> Muhammad Faisal >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in >>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
