Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux syslog on the way out?

itworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#21

Post by rhizome »

naner wrote: post #11
maratd wrote: post #7

This is a waste of time. Syslog is the standard for logging on *nix. You will bork everything if you replace it with something incompatible. Everybody knows this. So whatever you replace it with must be Syslog compatible. If that's the case ... there are numerous alternatives to choose from. Like rsyslog. Which is already standard on RHEL, nevermind Fedora. Rsyslog has this nifty feature where you can immediately tra…

I disagree. A lot of these old *nix tools are showing their age and could use a refresh based on known deficiencies. Creating new tools won't harm the old ones so I don't see a problem.

What are a few examples of other "old *nix tools" that are showing their age and have "known deficiencies?"

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#22

Post by plq »

Syslog is definitely not on its way out. It's been in use for 30 years because it works. Perhaps this is rather Redhat trying its hand at the embrace & extend game by introducing proprietary tools? Forcing staff to train on such technologies (with pretty yet dysfunctional guis) will make migrating to other systems harder.

As for the free-form text "problem" this solution claims to address: Different daemons produce logs in different format simply because one's data won't fit in another's schema. And you can actually live with postfix and qmail producing logs in different formats about the same event because you have strictly one of them installed in your server. And in my experience, switching from one to another is a huge undertaking where rewriting your regexp hacks is a drop in a bucket.

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#23

Post by rhizome »

maratd wrote: post #7

This is a waste of time. Syslog is the standard for logging on *nix. You will bork everything if you replace it with something incompatible. Everybody knows this. So whatever you replace it with must be Syslog compatible. If that's the case ... there are numerous alternatives to choose from. Like rsyslog. Which is already standard on RHEL, nevermind Fedora. Rsyslog has this nifty feature where you can immediately tra…

Over the summer I worked at a company with so little institutional knowledge that an argument broke out about whether to use NTP or not, and what to replace it with (in a webapp, natch) to ensure a good timebase. I was so flustered by this line of discussion that I had trouble participating.

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#24

Post by alextingle »

rhizome wrote: post #21
naner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. A lot of these old *nix tools are showing their age and could use a refresh based on known deficiencies. Creating new tools won't harm the old ones so I don't see a problem.

What are a few examples of other "old *nix tools" that are showing their age and have "known deficiencies?"

CVS?

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#25

Post by InclinedPlane »

rhizome wrote: post #23
maratd wrote: post #7

This is a waste of time. Syslog is the standard for logging on *nix. You will bork everything if you replace it with something incompatible. Everybody knows this. So whatever you replace it with must be Syslog compatible. If that's the case ... there are numerous alternatives to choose from. Like rsyslog. Which is already standard on RHEL, nevermind Fedora. Rsyslog has this nifty feature where you can immediately tra…

Over the summer I worked at a company with so little institutional knowledge that an argument broke out about whether to use NTP or not, and what to replace it with (in a webapp, natch) to ensure a good timebase. I was so flustered by this line of discussion that I had trouble participating.

What exactly was the argument against NTP?

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#26

Post by wmf »

saljam wrote: post #13

Plan 9 has an extra permission for files; "append." When set, this means programs are only allowed to append text to the end of the file. Both simplifying logging (just open the file and write) and making it more secure (no arbitrary writes.) I wonder if Lennart and Kay would accept a solution that simple...

Linux also has append-only files, although as usual root can override it.

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#27

Post by wmf »

jleader wrote: post #17

It makes me smile sadly when one of the problems cited is "Syslog is only one of many logging systems on a Linux machine", and the solution proposed is the addition of another logging system.

I think they're proposing to remove all the others.

Re: Linux syslog on the way out?

#29

Post by rhizome »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #25
rhizome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the summer I worked at a company with so little institutional knowledge that an argument broke out about whether to use NTP or not, and what to replace it with (in a webapp, natch) to ensure a good timebase. I was so flustered by this line of discussion that I had trouble participating.

What exactly was the argument against NTP?

They weren't sure it was good enough, or good any more, and they were trying to figure out ways of maintaining a timebase completely within the application, from server to server. These were developers, both salary and contract, in their 30s. As a former sysadmin, now programmer, it was surreal.
Post reply on HN