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

[John]

Scott McDermott (mcdermot@questra.com) wrote:

> Jeffrey W. Baker on Thu  5/10 15:07 -0700:
> > You had better make sure that the disk on the destination is faster
> > than the sum of the logging rates of all the other hosts, or the
> > syslog-ng on the destination machine will start throwing entries away,
> > and *then* you'll really be embarrassed :)
> 
> Why does syslog-ng "throw messages away?" Shouldn't they be buffered
> instead of discarded? Surely memory can keep up.  It is unacceptable for
> messages to be thrown away.  You might as well just use UDP and `hope'
> all messages arrive.

I would imagine that syslog-ng would be able to keep up fine with not many
filters and a fast machine.  I have about 120 Unix/NT systems logging to syslog-ng, on the 
most part it does well keeping up with it but I do have a few filters which
I'm sure are quite intensive considering each line logged is sent through
these filters.  What does it do if it can't deal with the log straight away?
Puts it in the buffer for when it can deal with it?  What if the buffer gets
full?

I would imagine that's why there is the garbage collection stuff, cause it does
buffer.  I could be very wrong ?!  Where is Balazs. :-)

> Syslog-ng could be more efficient still by allocating large chunks of
> memory (maybe using obstacks) for each destination and then
> batch-writing them (say, when an alarm expires).  I imagine that
> syslog-ng spends a lot of time in system calls because it writes each
> message individually.

I didn't realise that.  From what the documentation says sync() does something
that might help you.  

John