From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Log rotation |
Date: | 2004-03-14 17:46:17 |
Message-ID: | 200403141246.17674.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 14 March 2004 12:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> >> Third, it seems that you don't have enough profiling data to support
> >> a 'syslog is bad' position.
> >
> > That is true. It is from hearsay, from people who run production
> > environments. It may be a belief based on old experiences though.
>
> I think it's pretty well established that syslog sucks for high log
> volume if you run it in the mode where it fsyncs its log after every
> message. But I don't believe we have any data that says it's a problem
> even if you avoid that pitfall.
>
Yep. The other basic thing I recomend is putting syslog/log output on a
different disk than where your data goes. Maybe not proactical for everyone,
but not a big deal for "enterprise" level users (which was the op's target
audience)
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-14 18:50:05 | Re: Log rotation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-14 17:45:08 | Re: listening addresses |