Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: ArkanoiD <ark@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:57:45 +0400
nuqneH,
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:24:31AM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote:
ArkanoiD wrote:
Well, does that mean that syslog should be either not reliable (generic
datagram), not portable enough (sdsc), buggy (nsyslogd) or suffering
performance problems (ng) ;-)?
You can get reliable logging with a stock BSD-flavor syslogd if you talk to
it via a named pipe (ie, /var/run/log or equivalent).
No, BSD syslog is not reliable since it is datagram socket.
And there still is no reliable kernel logging at all.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Chuck Swiger
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- References:
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: David Lang
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: ArkanoiD
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: ArkanoiD
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Chuck Swiger
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Prev by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Next by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Previous by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Index(es):