[mmt]

Protip: Use syslog-ng.

Besides longer log message (arbitrarily long, with a recompile) and reliable delivery, it obviates my main use for logrotate, since it can be configured to write to a filename (including directory) based on time, date, or other variables.

[js2]

Protip: look at rsyslog, syslog-ng, and splunk and decide what is right for your environment.

[mmt]

The "pro" that I am is sysadmin, and I'm asserting that evaluating all three is a waste of time.

Splunk, given its cost and complexity, is almost never right for startups.

Non-ng syslog is, on the other hand, so simplistic that it's not worth the effort of fancy configuration. Is there some kind of compelling advantage that I've been overlooking?

I never quite understood the conceit that every environment is a precious-and-unique snowflake requiring careful evaluation of any given tool.

[js2]

Turns out I am a sysadmin as well, and I'm asserting that each has various strengths. I have used syslog-ng as long ago as 2001, so I have some experience with it. Today I would recommend rsyslog. It is the default logger in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and Fedora is also transitioning to it:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureRsyslog

Further, I think that RELP and on-demand disk spooling of messages are compelling features. Its performance and reliability are good enough to feed your web-server access logs through.

I wouldn't overlook rsyslog, but I'm also not saying "just use it" because syslog-ng is certainly worth evaluating as well.

Edit: see also http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/centralized-logging-web-...

[mmt]

This more in-depth discussion has more value. Thank you.

I think that RELP and on-demand disk spooling of messages are compelling features

I think we're coming at the question from different perspectives. One of my primary goals is to avoid wasting my time. Since I've already evaluated and experimentally proven syslog-ng, switching means a large time investment.

As such, features like REPL and, arguably misfeatures[1], like disk spooling, fail to compel such an investment.

Once rsyslog has matured, something that I expect will be accelerated by its inclusion in major distros, it may be a no-brainer.

For my "money," there are far more interesting and productive problems to work on than logging, which is why I do give the "just use it" advice.

Turns out I am a sysadmin as well

By choice or necessity? Just curiosity on my part.

[1] I have yet to encounter an environment of non-trivial size where the risk of losing logging outweighs the risk of disk filling up and/or performance degradation from additional contentious I/O. For me, it's a killer feature of centralized logging: elimination of a particular source of failure/degradation.

[johnmark]

"Splunk, given its cost and complexity, is almost never right for startups."

Many, many startups would disagree with you. If cost is a factor, we're starting a program for startups. Feel free to ping me for more info.

We'll also have a new developer license for our next release, which will make it easier for cash-strapped developers to use Splunk.

And finally, I would just point out that using rsyslog, syslog, and syslog-ng do not preclude you from using something like Splunk. Many of our users use Splunk with a log manager, such as syslog-NG, because they like our analytics engine and reporting tools. YMMV.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion :)

-John Mark Splunk Community Guy

[mmt]

Many, many startups would disagree with you. If cost is a factor, we're starting a program for startups. Feel free to ping me for more info.

Thanks for the reply. Admittedly, my statement is better qualified by "early" and "web scale."

Cost is very much a factor, as $500/mo buys a lot of ramen, and, even for a slightly larger company, is still a noticeable expense, for something where the value is unknown[1] ahead of time.

Even just the nomenclature "enterprise" implies pricing that's optimized to pay for the sales process or other hand-holding, rather than something technical. Such inference is further bolstered by the fact that a full price list isn't published.

If cost is a factor, we're starting a program for startups. Feel free to ping me for more info.

The companies I work for, in general, have neither the free time nor the inclination to pay for such a sales process. The program I'd want to see is one where I can order online with a credit card.

Time is a portion of cost, not just cash.

[1] Perhaps even unknowable, since, if the output isn't consumed, it's all potential value.

[thomasknowles]

I'm a huge Splunk user and I agree with it's price tag it would make it very difficult to justify the costs against the gains when you're operating a small and tight ship. However, I would be very interested in the tools that they use to analyse their data. Obviously they could use a series of grep/awk scripts to pull out the data in key value pairs but what do they do with it after that?

[mmt]

I have karma to burn[1], but I'm embarrassed and ashamed that pointed advice gets downvoted (with no discussion) while a platitude is upvoted.

This is an example of why Startup School speakers censor themselves: we bring it upon ourselves.

[1] Especially since it's not meaningful.