William L. Maltby wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:08 -0400, Sam Drinkard wrote: > >> William L. Maltby wrote: >> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>> <snip> >>> > > >> Ok.. maybe this will help get me back... few weeks back, talking about >> shutting down unneeded processes, and servers. I did such. About the >> only thing I see NOT running that was before, but *shouldn't * affect, >> or I'd think it would not affect syslogd is portmap. >> > > I can't recall ever seeing logging affected by that. But, the logging > does use ports (unix ports, IIRC), so maybe there is some error or some > connection I'd never seen? Used to be tcpwrappers and portmap worked > together and I always did a deny all and enable local. But that was > always only IP related (IP #s, host-domain-names,...). > > >> You are correct Bill.. time for man syslogd and see what I need to do to >> debug the thing. All the obvious have been checked out. >> > > And I would not be surprised if just restarting it fixed it too! You > know how obtuse these damn things can be! > > >> <snip> >> > > Good luck. > No joy. Q. I see a process called "klogd" is running a different pid from syslogd. I don't ever recall seeing something as klogd before?? I got a sneaking suspicion I stopped something, but if I only knew what besides syslogd was required. Portmap does not apparently need to be running, as nothing still has been written to the log file, and a reboot did not help. Rats.....