On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:34:35AM +, Steve Crosby wrote:
>
> That said, a system that has that large a syslog load is likely to have a
> dedicated syslog server, which should mitigate the problem mentioned.
It doesn't take that much load to hit problems, BTW. A mail server
(which should be
On February 20, 2005 10:14 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Sure, it is more work. Suck it up guys. Walk the extra mile to do
> the right thing. Take the extra few minutes to ensure that what
> the book says, is really what is.
That pretty much sums it up, yes, albeit a little blunt. But the point come
Jeremy Utley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>
>>This I don't understand. I thought syslog-ng was the new syslog
>>daemon of choice for LFS. If it goes away, what is destined to
>>replace it?
>>
>>
>>
> Gerard's post came as a shock to me as well,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
This I don't understand. I thought syslog-ng was the new syslog
daemon of choice for LFS. If it goes away, what is destined to
replace it?
Gerard's post came as a shock to me as well, so I took the opprotunity
to ask him about it on IRC, since he happened to be there at th
was in bringing this whole thing up.
First off, I'd like to thank Gerard for his thoughtful, downhome
and humble responses to my questions. His thoughts on this subject
are exactly what I was hoping would get brought out in the open.
And that is, should technical excellence be sacrificed
