| 1 |
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:51 +0200, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 16.11.2009 14:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:05:18 +0200, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> - No need to logrotate with time based filenames. Hence, no |
| 7 |
> >> need to "kill -HUP" the syslog daemon. No missed logs. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Then how do you get the server to use the new logfile names each |
| 10 |
> > day/week? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It creates and uses a new file each hour/day/etc. Perhaps, you missed |
| 13 |
> the file(...) directive? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I didn't miss it. My question was how to you get the process to USE the |
| 16 |
new file. Unless you SIGHUP the process, it will continue using the |
| 17 |
config in pace when it started. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > You only need to send a SIGHUP to the server using that log |
| 20 |
> > facility, so syslog would not be affected in your example. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I can't parse this. The point is avoiding SIGHUP so that we do not miss |
| 23 |
> any log messages. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You wouldn't miss a log messsage by sending a SIGHUP to your mail server, |
| 26 |
the logger woulsd keep running. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> OP asked how one manages log files without logrotate and the answer is |
| 29 |
> with time based file names. It has the additional benefit of avoiding |
| 30 |
> SIGHUP. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I understood both the question and answer, but it seems like you are |
| 33 |
avoiding logrotate by re-implementing it in your scripts. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
An example of hard water is ice. |
Archives