SUMMARY: Log consolidation?

Thanks for the pointer to "unloved output". Once I upgraded to v7.1.1, the
-u option produces a single logfile that I can swatch. For now, I also
hacked the conserver code to remove the check if anyone is connected as you
had suggested. This results in ALL output going to the -L logfile.
Obviously, this can result in a ton of output if a human is attached and
working. However, I'm rethinking this. I might just reactivate the
connection check and assume that if a human is connected, s/he is
responsible for what's on the console. I'm beginning to believe you have the
right idea about unloved output after all: nobody is watching it, so I'm
going to only concern myself with it (i.e. unloved output).

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Stansell [mailto:bryan@conserver.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:34 PM
To: 'users@conserver.com'
Subject: Re: Log consolidation?


On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 01:15:08PM -0400, Matt Cheek wrote:
> a perl script.). Is there a way to send some or all of my console logs to
> syslog (in addition to or instead of individual log files). I would love
to
> continue to have all the individual log files PLUS be able to also point
all
> console output to a specific syslog "facility.level" so syslog could
> aggregate the records into a single file that swatch could watch.

Not with the current code.

> Any ideas? In the meantime, I'm going to try firing up a whole bunch of
> swatch processes. :-)

None over here (without code changes).  The recent code is lending
itself more to doing stuff like that, but it's not there yet.  It would
be fairly easy to be able to have a list of files (and possibly syslog)
as destinations for the output.  Then you could point all consoles to a
common file as well as specific ones.  Only problem there is the
logfiles themselves are not stamped with the name of the console, so
you don't know which thing generated the error.

There is the "unloved output" stuff which is kinda what you're looking
for.  The output is only generated if someone *isn't* attached to a
particular console (see the manpage for a better worded explanation).
So, you could enable that (the -u option in 7.1.1) and watch that
data.  It's not perfect, but would get you mostly there.  If you change
to code and remove the check for no one being attached, you're 100%
there.

Yep, it's all ugly.  I'll make sure the request/idea is in the TODO
file so that it will at least make myself (and others?) think about it
some more.

Bryan
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@conserver.com
https://www.conserver.com/mailman/listinfo/users