This is a discussion on Re: [fw-wiz] syslog and network management - Firewalls ; On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > UDP is a LOT faster than TCP. No ECC so it uses less cpu, less memory, and has less of a memory footprint. If you were dropping a lot of ...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
> UDP is a LOT faster than TCP. No ECC so it uses less cpu, less memory, and has less of a memory footprint. If you were dropping a lot of UDP, then TCP would not help at all--you would receive less, just more reliably.
> NG is a great app. Not sure why it failed you. Good idea to try a different syslogd.
ng does a lot of things, however all I need is a very trivial syslog
implementation. I don't need it to do any filtering (not by apps, not by
servers, not even by facility or severity), all I need it to do is to
recieve logs (checking to see if it needs to add host and timestamp to the
message), write them to disk, and relay a copy to the next log server.
> You state that you switched to regular syslogd with async file io--was the file io set to async with NG also? If it starts happening again try:
as I remember, -ng didn't let me just disable sync writes, instead it had
me give a max number of messages to buffer. I set this value at a few
> vmstat 5 (show disk activity every 5 seconds, io contention, # writes, etc.)
> top (let you check cpu activity, ram, top apps, etc.)
> netstat -i (check for errors, overruns, and overall activity)
I'll do so in the future if/when I revisit the choice. the macine didn't
have sar on it, but I did check the other things and didn't find any
smoking guns. since switching to a different syslogd solved the problem I
didn't dig that hard.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 2:07 AM
> To: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] syslog and network management
> 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, email@example.com 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 mailing list
> firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards mailing list