3 ms·
Counter-question: Why am I running my sexy sweet logging solution and syslog in parallel? Because that's exactly what I'd have to do until other daemons like,
by moe 15y ago
Counter-question: Why am I running my sexy sweet logging solution and syslog in parallel?
Because that's exactly what I'd have to do until other daemons like, say, redis itself, speak this fancy new protocol.
- tptacek 15y agoIf there was a fancy new protocol actually involved, I'd agree with you, but this is a case of simply using an existing tool for a problem it is very well suited to. No special new logging protocol is required.
- moe 15y agoNo special new logging protocol is required. So, what do I put into the redis configuration-file to make it log to itself?
- tptacek 15y agoIs the suggestion here that because Redis logs suboptimally, Redis is a bad solution for managing log entries?
- moe 15y agoNo, the suggestion is: Having all logs in one place is a good thing. Even if it's so unstructured that only a human can digest it. Context matters, a lot. When my app logs a timeout against redis then my next question is "so what did redis do at the time, did it perhaps log something"? Following your advice I'd either have to look in two places (redislog and syslog) or feed my syslog stream into redislog, to have everything end up in one place (redis). Any sane person would do the latter. Under that premise, what's the benefit of having some apps log to redis directly when the syslog-stream also ends up in redis anyways?