4 ms·
Trivial, maybe. Not only does it add a single point of failure, though, as the logs get aggregated on the syslog host, the only “benefit” rtail retains is looki
by mmarx 11y ago
Trivial, maybe. Not only does it add a single point of failure, though, as the logs get aggregated on the syslog host, the only “benefit” rtail retains is looking at the logs in a browser instead of tail(1).
- krakensden 11y agoNot sure why syslogd as a single point of failure is worse than rtail-server being a single point of failure- there are some very, very stable & battle-tested syslogd implementations. Additionally, it doesn't really seem like that's the case- as long as you were willing to reconfigure syslog on the hosts, you could do syslog -> rtail => rtail-server (-> is local, => is network), as rtail works via UDP.