[syslog-ng]syslog-ng vs (of all things) Win2k + IIS

[A.L.Lambert]

> 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