Re: monitoring svlogd-produced logfiles

[Alex Efros <powerman@powerman.asdfGroup.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

Hi!

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:10:05PM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> No, I do need svlogd to write to disk.  Well, maybe not.  I'm using

You'd better clarify itself, to write or not to write. ;-)

> /dev/log... can I have two socklog processes doing that?)

You don't need two socklog reading from /dev/log. ;) Anyway, it's unix
socket, not a fifo... I don't think you can have two listeners on single
unix socket.

> No, I need svlogd to write the logs to disk.  In addition to the on-disk
> logs, I want something to process those logs in realtime... to make a
> summary log and something that I can have sitting open writing matched
> entries to STDOUT so I can view it over ssh on my desktop... in
> realtime.

Duplicating messages to STDERR from svlogd will allow you to receive them
in realtime.

> What does <> do?  I've never seen that notation before.

man bash.
Open read/write to workaround case there nobody open this fifo for writing yet.

> BTW, I think I sent the response on the "tail -F" thing to you and not
> the list... to summ, I did try "-n 0 -F" and it didn't follow.  Could be
> a swatch thing tho... I'll have to try it again and see if it still
> doesn't work.  If it doesn't, I still need to find an alternative to it,
> so any suggestions are welcome.

Yep. To summ my reply :) I suggest using script-wrapper around tail to
a) force needed params for tail
b) debug which param swatch try to use when running tail (without hard
things like strace)

-- 
			WBR, Alex.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]