On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, ArkanoiD wrote:
> Hmm, did you try tcp transport (if your router does support it)?
> It might be better..
the sending devices did not support tcp transport, but there is not much
of an excuse for a program who's purpose is receiving logs to do so poorly
at it. if it's missing so many UDP packets that the OS is overflowing it's
buffers and dropping them than it's going to do bad things to the tcp
dataflow as well. the difference is that now you are able to rely on the
sender to act as a buffer as well. but that leaves your logs where you
don't want them, eating up resources on the sender while being vunerable
to disruption.
David Lang
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:12:51PM -0800, david_at_lang.hm wrote:
>>>
>>> We were logging 6 PIXen as well as many switches and routers (and a
>>> much lesser level). We never "noticed" a great loss of messages... I
>>> guess I can assume you did, and maybe I could learn from how you did!
>>> :)
>>>
>>> What daemon do you use?
>>
>> we tried to use syslog-ng to receive activity from our border router and
>> write a copy locally (in large chunks) and relay the logs to another
>> syslog server inside.
>>
>> we noticed a LOT of missing logs, when we changed to the default debian
>> syslogd we were able to handle an order of magnatude more logs without any
>> sign of missing logs (from around 100/sec to >1000/sec)
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards_at_listserv.icsalabs.com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards_at_listserv.icsalabs.com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Received on Mar 01 2008
Intro
