Johnny Tan wrote: > I'm definitely all for stable, non-broken software even if it lags > behind -- even way behind. in the case of rsyslog, thats not the case :D I had a play with the 3.x tree today, and it *looks* ok to me. So might as well inflict it upon everyone else considering its in the Testing Repo, no sane person will use it in Production. Right ? I shall have updated packages in a couple of days, prolly over the weekend. The package queue is quite long at the moment. > But I'm specifically interested in rsyslog v3 for the disk-assisted > buffering. > > Basically, I want to be able to log locally AND remotely. AFAICT, I have > to move to v3 to get this feature. err, really ? you could do that with conventional syslog too. > Do you use it for central logging? And if you do, how do you mitigate > the risk of data loss if the clients can't contact the server? you can syslog to a machine and it can syslog to another machine.... also, running over tcp is nicer, since you atleast now get a chance to do something about bits that dont make it. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq