Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:45:24 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NEWSYSLOG changes Message-ID: <200302272045.24640.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <p05200f22ba81b269ba0f@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20030210114930.GB90800@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> <200302251255.48219.wes@softweyr.com> <p05200f22ba81b269ba0f@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 04:18 pm, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 12:55 PM -0800 2/25/03, Wes Peters wrote:
> >On Monday 24 February 2003 18:08, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> > > The idea of -R is that newsyslog should always rotate the given
> > > list of files, whether or not *it* thinks they need to be
> > > rotated.
> > >
> > >
> > > For now it is assumed that the caller is the same process which
> >>
> >> usually writes to the file, and thus it does NOT use the pid_file
> >> to signal that process. The whole idea of this is to let Wes
> >> change syslogd to use this, and it would be silly for newsyslog
> >> to HUP syslogd when it's syslogd that is requesting the rotate.
> >> It may be that we should handle the pid-file signalling a
> >> different way.
> >
> >Uh, actually, syslogd needs the HUP to re-open the file. ;^)
> >
> >I can change that iff I run newsyslog -F, waiting for the "new"
> >log file to appear. Let me think about how to best do that...
>
> Well, I'm seriously thinking of redoing the -R update a little,
> and have a separate option to say "do not signal". So, -R will
> still send the signal by default.
OK. I think I'll use the "do not signal" option, cause syslogd
essentially restarts itself on SIGHUP, which is a little overboard for
just rolling one file.
> Still, I'd think that syslogd would:
> close the logfile
> exec newsyslog -NR syslogd somefile
> wait for that to finish
> re-open the log file.
Yup, that's what I came up with when I was hacking on it yesterday.
The code looks astonishingly like what you have above.
> If newsyslog does the HUP, then it is also going to sleep for
> something like 5 seconds, because it wants to be sure that the
> signaled-process has done all the processing it needs to do.
Yeah, ugh. And syslogd needs to pause to allow newsyslog to start, and
etc. Nah.
> >... I do like the idea of not needing a HUP signal between the
> >two since syslogd started the newsyslog anyhow.
>
> Also, wouldn't a HUP will cause all config-files to be re-read, and
> all log files to be closed and opened? That seems like a lot of
> unnecessary work.
Yup, exactly. Let me know if you put in a separate option for "don't
signal" so I can use it.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302272045.24640.wes>