This afternoon I was in a debate with another one of the software engineering guys here were I work. He has made the claim that for 300 machines each logging a message at least every 10 seconds (probably more like once every other second.) that encapsultaing the message in an XML tag and then sending that to a windblows 2000 box via HTTP running IIS, where it has to process the message using a CGI or ASP script, is more scalable than using syslog-ng, and that syslog-ng can't even handle this load. Now, I would beg to differ on this assesment, but I need to find some numbers to backup my claim. Can anyone help? (Ohh.. and you don't have to necessarily use an Intel box for the main server)
Matthew M. Copeland Software Engineer matthew.copeland@honeywell.com
ROFLMAO! He REALLY thinks a Win2k box in THAT configuration can outdo syslog-ng on a good UNIX boxen for logging? (snicker, giggle). OOOOOkkkaayyy... I don't have any hard numbers, but I've tested it with about 20 remote boxes doing a "while true do;logger blah blah ; done" loop, and syslog-ng never broke a good sweat (although the standard syslogd gets it's lunch ate by such loads; which was what I was testing: syslog-ng vs syslogd. Syslog-ng was so far and away the hands down winner that I didn't even bother to record the hard numbers). If I get time tomorrow, I'll see if I can rack up some hard numbers for ya. Maybe even whip up a little C code to really blast the hell out of it. Anyhoo... that's my 2 cents. -- A.L.Lambert