[syslog-ng] Simple Doubt

Alexander Clouter ac56 at soas.ac.uk
Wed Jun 6 22:07:07 CEST 2007


Tom Le <dottom at gmail.com> [20070606 09:18:02 -0700]:
> >Agreed, however a better design would be:
> >
> ><Log> ---> <Perl> ---> <Log2>
> >
> ><Log2> --[using 'tail' function]--> syslog-ng -> syslog-ng
> >
> >These would be disconnected and you would not run into any nasty problems. 
> >Another advantage being that if the perl code soaks up the CPU cycles and 
> >the logging is not urgent (needed at the final destination ASAP) you could 
> >nice down the priority of the process to prevent it stomping in on 
> >syslog-ng's performance.
> But that scenario only supports logs that are "syslog friendly".  If you
> have to do any kind of normalization or post-processing or dealing with
> multi-line records in a log file, you have to use a post-processing process
> such as Perl.  Not all logs have human-friendly readable text and the
> post-processing Perl script can translate the log record into something more
> useful.
Well thats why the Perl step is still in there, to convert from the raw 
source to whatever is wanted.

> The CPU cycles required by Perl parsing is minimal and is a common myth that
> Perl is a CPU hog.  I have Perl scripts processing billions of log events
> per week.
Someone might want to do something CPU intensive but also it gives you the 
option of doing a stack of non-CPU bound activities that are DNS related 
and/or SQL related.

Either way, there is no need for that pipe :)



More information about the syslog-ng mailing list