On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:01:54PM -0400, Jose Nazario wrote: > i still vote for logrotate. its just soooo configurable, in all the right > areasl. So that we might be able to quantify things like this, I'd like to pose the question of just what features in a log rotation tool are useful. Things that come to mind: * Rotation frequency configurable by size, frequency, or both. * Rotation depth (how many old log.num files are stored) configurable by size, number of files, or both. * Hooks for automatic compression (via configurable algorithms) and/or other postprocessing of archived logs (either immediately after rotation, or after reaching an arbitrary rotation depth). (I see this as subsuming logrotate's mail, mailfirst, and maillast directives.) * Templatized rotated filename generation (not just adding an extension). * Ability to specify rotate+HUP or copy+truncate rotation mechanisms on a per-file basis. * Arbitrary pre-rotation and post-rotation procedures and tests. (By tests, I'm thinking of things like being able to decide whether to rotate a given log based on whether a particular process is running, or whether any process has the file open; by procedures, I mean functionality like logrotate's "postrotate" directive or the creation of new files via "create".) * Ability to run as a periodic cleanup script, or a daemon. * Ability to specify options as defaults, for specific files, and/or for files matching wildcard/regex patterns. * Ability to specify minimum/maximum time between rotations. * Highly Portable (including to Windows environments) Am I missing anything? (Obviously, logrotate does most of these things; once we have a list of all of the features that would be nice to have, it would be nice to make a chart of what tools offer what features.) -- Sweth. -- Sweth Chandramouli ; <svcat_private> President, Idiopathic Systems Consulting
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 12:20:30 PDT