I should have mentioned that Squid only logs 'level 0' debugging to
syslog. This is basically only startup messages and serious
errors/warnings. It should be a really low volume.
Right. so tuned syslog events from squid of this nature are no real load.
Also, I was always under the impression that Squid wrote to the
local syslogd, and *that* process was responsible for forwarding
(via UDP) the messages over the network to other syslogs. Its just
an assumption I made, so I could be wrong?
No, you are right, but then thats two levels of excess load:
one to swap contexts and process the event via localhost UDP
one to send the UDP eventstream out on the network to the
final syslog destination.
If the goal is to log the data on the local host, why would you intrude
a syslog process into the pipe instead of doing buffered I/O within squid?
(I could be really clueless here: maybe lots of processes is a better model
than one giant mastodon, which does its own internal premption of work under
time constraints. Certainly back in the mmdf days, we thought that was why
mmdf beat sendmail. Of course PP managed to intrude a whole *tribe* of
giant OSI bloated mastodons instead of a herd of chickens. Where squid fits
in this analogy isn't clear: Maybe its a giant squid :-)
-George
-- George Michaelson | DSTC Pty Ltd Email: ggm@dstc.edu.au | University of Qld 4072 Phone: +61 7 3365 4310 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3365 4311 | http://www.dstc.edu.auReceived on Tue Jun 09 1998 - 17:50:55 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:40:40 MST