>On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 07:02:47PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:16:19PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> > >On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alexander Bluhm
>> > >wrote:
>> > >> My goal is to make logging via syslog reliable. At least I want
>> > >> to see when a mes
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 07:02:47PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:16:19PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > >On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alexander Bluhm
> > >wrote:
> > >> My goal is to make logging via syslog reliable. At least I want
> > >> to see when a message g
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:16:19PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alexander Bluhm
> >wrote:
> >> My goal is to make logging via syslog reliable. At least I want
> >> to see when a message gets lost.
> >>
> >> So my idea is to write a kernel log message if sendsysl
>On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alexander Bluhm
>wrote:
>> My goal is to make logging via syslog reliable. At least I want
>> to see when a message gets lost.
>>
>> So my idea is to write a kernel log message if sendsyslog(2) cannot
>> deliver a message. Then you see the problem on the console
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> My goal is to make logging via syslog reliable. At least I want
> to see when a message gets lost.
>
> So my idea is to write a kernel log message if sendsyslog(2) cannot
> deliver a message. Then you see the problem on the console and in
Hi,
My goal is to make logging via syslog reliable. At least I want
to see when a message gets lost.
So my idea is to write a kernel log message if sendsyslog(2) cannot
deliver a message. Then you see the problem on the console and in
the dmesg buffer. If syslogd comes back later, you will als
