Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users:
> 15.12.2024 03:07, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users:
> ...
> >> Today systemd plays major role in linux, and linux plays major role in the
> >> IT world. And while some its ideas are questionable or may look weird,
> >> some
> >> are interesting. And logging is one of them: it offers a trivial logging
> >> capability to all services it starts, by writing to stdout or stderr
> >> (configurable, both by default). The rest - adding timestamp, tag[pid],
> >> etc - is done by systemd and is the result is written to the log. Priority
> >> is recognized too at the beginning of the line.
> >
> > It also sucks raw eggs at doing this, to the point that I was
> > motivated to add a postlogd service to make Postfix logging reliable
> > again.
>
> Oh. I wondered why postlogd has been introduced.
>
> From the design, syslog-compatible logging in systemd should be more reliable
> than for traditional syslog, - namely, it should survive syslogd restart,
> because it is the service manager (pid1) process who keeps /dev/log open,
> in a way similar to how master(8) in postfix keeps its private/foo sockets
> open, across services restart. So it does not require restart of other
> services who performs logging, and does not need extra sockets in chroot.
>
> All the rest should work exactly the same as with traditional syslog.
>
> What was so unreliable in there?
Oh, it is wonderful for laptops. On a busy server, it is known to
discard events and to use more resources. No-one carea about the
resources, with 16-core CPUs and SSDs.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
