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

[matthew.copeland@honeywell.com]

That would be great.  The big thing they seem to be harping on is that
using TCP over udp in the syslog will make it much slower, since we have
to use TCP for the transmissions.  

	I am assuming that someone here will know this.  When you use tcp
logging for remote syslog-ng, does it keep the tcp connection open, or
does it initiate a new connection each time a message is posted?

Matthew M. Copeland

> 	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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> syslog-ng maillist  -  syslog-ng@lists.balabit.hu
> https://lists.balabit.hu/mailman/listinfo/syslog-ng
>