From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <13426df10904271740x193e2987r86cd11ca840c2080@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10904280729i4b91c1ebi20d75fc59a64f94c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:32:16 -0600 Message-ID: <14ec7b180904280832x2b2338e4sc5ed5be282f491e5@mail.gmail.com> From: andrey mirtchovski To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] just in case anyone has written this Topicbox-Message-UUID: f4144e4e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > if one node is just slow enough in responding that it > falls outside the timeout, you could get an annoying situation > where that node is out-of-step forever after. worse yet, nodes may be sending more than one line at a time, circumventing the aggregator. if they do it fast enough it becomes a real mess and there's no amount of lookback one can do to ensure this isn't happening :) i'm routinely seeing syslog brought to its knees around here by a particular cluster management software which decides to log two lines instead of just one for a particular often-failing operation, so instead of 'message repeated X times' (for some very large X) we get 'disk full'...