Author: Rainer Gerhards

If you follow my blog or the rsyslog mailing list, you probably already know that rsyslog is available on a number of platforms. Thanks to contributors, rsyslog runs on BSD and is seen on Solaris and HP-UX too. The later two are not real ports yet and each of them has their restrictions. Also, I’d like to see support for AIX, but was not even able yet to obtain a compile platform.

HOWEVER… as much as I desire multi-platform support, it is the truth that rsyslog stems from and is fueled by the Linux community. This is where the major contributions come from and this is also where the major interest originates. Plus, this is the only truly free platform, so it lives up to the same spirit that rsyslog has.

When it comes to putting effort into the project, I have limited resources. Naturally, I put those resources to where they create the most effect. For that reason, most of the development is focused towards Linux (followed by BSD, where there is also an active community). Solaris and friends live mostly in the corporate world and so questions asking for rsyslog on these platforms mostly come from for-profit organizations. And there are very few of these requests. So I can not give them priority, because they do not benefit the project sufficiently large. HOWEVER, if the corporations put some money up and sponsor development, that is definitely in the interest of the project, because it allows us to grow and the sponsorship will probably allow us to do other things as well. Everyone benefits.

Once a platform is implemented, it must be maintained. Obviously, there is little point in orphaning a platform that we already run on. But for platforms with little interest, it is probably not justified to test each and every new release (just think of the testing time required). I’d call those platforms “tier 2” platforms and think I can look at them only in response to a problem report. Of course, we offer rsyslog support contracts and if a sufficiently large number of users decide to purchase these contracts (extremely low numbers today, to phrase it politely) and these purchasers are interested in e.g. Solaris, we will most probably change priorities and all out of sudden Solaris will become “tier 1”. Of course, this may push away some community-requested work, but again I think this is in the overall interest of the project: if we can secure continuous funding, not only from one source (Adiscon), but many, we can be much more sure we can implement more and more cool things in the future.

I hope this clarifies my position on the importance of the various platforms for rsyslog and how I will handle them.

Oh, and one final note: if a platform requires me to even purchase hardware (Solaris/Sparc for example), I will not do that unless someone donates a machine (NOT LEND it, but donate, so that at least for the next three years I can ensure maintaining rsyslog on it – a virtual machine, of course, is sufficient if you happen to have some inside a cloud ;)). It would be just plainly silly to put real money at supporting a community that does not contribute back ;)

I started thinking about video tutorials a few days ago. Videos are cool and more and more people use them. So why not create a couple of them for rsyslog?

The idea is simple and I think it will work equally well for teaching both conceptual topics as well as practical “how to” types of problems. The later probably works even better…

I could investigate, design and build my tutorial in a perfect way. The result would obviously be very useful and perfect – but most probably there never would be any result due to time constraints and priorities. With this on my mind, I created a very first trial tutorial this morning, all in all in less than an hour. It took me some more minutes to get it up on the web site, but this effort will never again be required.

The question this trial shall answer is: is it possible to create something useful (not perfect) in little time? My personal feeling is mixed. I think one notices quickly that the material is not as much organized as you would expect from a talk. Also, some additional slides would definitely have enhanced the usefulness – but also increased production time very much. On the other hand, I think some information is conveyed by the presentation. And, even better, information that you can not obtain with reasonable effort from any other place.

So: is it useful or not? What could improve the usefulness without causing a large increase in production time? Does it make sense to create sub-optimal content but be able to create it as it can quickly be done? If so, which other topics would you like to see covered?

Please have a look at the rsyslog message flow video tutorial and let me know your thoughts!

This week, I had the opportunity to work a bit on rsyslog on Solaris. Most importantly, I could set up a compile and test environment (*not* that easy if you don’t know your way around Solaris…) and have integrated those patches that folks have sent over time (unfortunately I have lost many of the contributor names, so if you are among them please let me know for proper credits!).

I was able to integrate those patches and make sure that they don’t break the linux build (I am still a bit in the verification process, but it looks good). I have created a solaris branch in git and will in the future keep solaris-specific additions in that branch. I will merge that branch back into the master branches every time I am confident enough that it doesn’t break anything in the main stream build.

I was satisfied to see that not that many changes were required for a Solaris build. So the initial effort, some month ago, seems to have paid well. I have seen that the solaris git branch compiles, but I have not done any serious testing on Solaris. Still, I am short on time and I have to admit I have spent more time on it this week than I should. So testing is off-limits for now…

However, I got some good impression on what it takes to make rsyslog really run on Solaris. First of all, even gcc4 does not provide the atomic instructions that it is used to provide on Linux. This case is not really handled in the code, so the end result is that the binary will be racy. I guess it will run, but it will have subtle issues on high-volume log servers and/or serves that run asynchronous action queues. Especially if the later is used, I’d expect rsyslogd to segfault every now and then (but without async actions it should not be that bad, at least I think).

There also still does no kernel input plugin exist (or an imklog driver). I also guess there may be issues with the local log socket. I’d still caution everybody to be very, very careful when experimenting with the local log socket. I remember earlier testing where rsyslogd simply destroyed the socket but never was able to re-create it. Some other tweaks are probably required to core and runtime files. Some compiler messages point into that direction (and part of that may even be nasty).

I have compiled only the bare essentials, without TLS, database drivers or anything else fancy. I expect some mild to moderate problems with them, too.

So in short, the current code base is probably be used to run a relatively stable syslog relay or file-only receiver. I wouldn’t put it in too much production, though. For folks interested in rsyslog on Solaris, we now at least have a version again that can be build and serve as a basis for extension. I am glad I could do that.

As a side-note, I am still looking for sponsors of a full rsyslog Solaris porting effort. If you would like to sponsor (or know someone who does), just mail me and I’ll help settle the dirty details ;)

I hope this update – and the progress made – on rsyslog on Solaris is useful for a couple of folks.

Most people agree that rsyslog is a decent and useful piece of software. However, most people (including me) also agree that the rsyslog documentation is, ahem, sub-optimal.

When I code, I always think “I’ll do the doc soon”. But when “soon” arrives, something else is in the way. Yet another (justified) feature request, articles and other projects (yes, they exist ;)). At least I try to convey the important concepts and backgrounds here in the blog, but you have a hard time if you intend to extract a specific feature from the blog. So: the doc is in a bad shape.

I just got an offer from an volunteer who would like to help with the doc. That may even be the start of a rsyslog doc team. In any case, that’s a fantastic opportunity. First of all, more doc means more and happier users. Secondly, I think it is very useful when someone other than me writes user doc. I can’t even envision the questions that a regular user may ask, and this is a problem for any manual I write.

I hope this collaboration manifests. In order to aid it, let me briefly describe what currently exists: www.rsyslog.com is driven by Postnuke for various reasons, the most important one that I have a postnuke wiz at hand, so I do not need to dig in any dirty details if I need something extra ;) Postnuke is a CMS, so dynamic content can be added and is easy to edit by anyone else. So far, we use the web site itself primarily for news announcements.

The real doc set is kept as HTML. We use a Postnuke module to integrate that static html into the CMS. The HTML doc set exists only once, right inside the rsyslog git tree. When I make changes, they automatically go into git, go into the tarball and I also copy them over to the web site. All of this is without any effort, which is good. The bottom line is that the HTML doc set needs to be modified by patches or me pulling from someone else’s git archive (both of which I will happily do). I think it is good to have the html pages available in the tarball, previous discussion on the rsyslog mailing list showed that package maintainers think so, too.

There exists two man pages. They are extremely bad. They need to be hand-synced with the html pages and I almost always forget to do so. Man pages do not go onto the web (besides some very old copies I produced via a clumsy way). But the live in git and the tarball, too.

A partial effort was done to internationalize the doc set, based on the usage of docbook. I think this is a good approach and the work done so far is kept in the rsyslog docbook branch. However, the approach currently focuses on the man pages. I do not know if it will work for the HTML doc, too.

I find docbook a very interesting concept, but the learning curve is steep. I simply had not enough time yet to dig deeply into it to start any serious work with it (html and LaTeX are still king for me ;)).

We have also a few places of obviously user-contributed content, the most important one being the rsyslog wiki. It contains many useful things, among others config samples. The bad thing about the wiki is that there is only a single one. So it probably is not the place to describe things that are very version dependent. Or is it and I have just the wrong approach – correct me!

Worth mentioning is also the rsyslog knowledge base, which primarily focuses dynamic content and discussions. But the search function is a very useful tool. Also, part of the larger knowledge base is devoted to gather information on how to configure syslog devices, how to best react to messages and how to consolidate e.g. Windows events. This obviously is not direct rsyslog documentation, but I hope it is useful and will continue to grow even more useful.

Finally, there is the mailing list and most importantly the mailing list archive. While this is definitely not considered a documentation resource, the archive has a lot of valuable information and it may even be a starting point for creating “real” doc.

I hope this is a good and complete wrap-up of the doc situation. If I have forgotten anything or you’d like to tell me your thoughts: just use the comment function! :)

Hi all,

good news today. Actually, the good news already happened last Saturday. The Debian project announced the new stable Debian 5.0 release.

Finally having a new stable Debian is very good news in itself – congrats, Debian team. You work is much appreciated!

But this time, this was even better news for me. Have a look at the detail release notes and you know why: Debian now comes with a new syslogd, finally replacing sysklogd. And, guess what – rsyslog is the deamon of choice! So it is time to celebrate for the rsyslog community, too.

There were a couple of good reasons for Debian to switch to rsyslog. Among others, an “active upstream” was part of the sucess, thanks for that, folks (though I tend to think that after the more or less unmaintained sysklogd package it took not much to be considered “active and responsive” ;)).

Special thanks go to Michael Biebl, who worked really hard to make rsyslog available on Debian. It is one thing to write a great syslogd, it is a totally different one to integrate it into an distro’s infrastructure. Michael has done a tremendous job, and I think this is his success at least as much as it mine. He is very eager to do all the details right and has provided excellent advise to me very often. Michael, thanks for all of this and I hope you’ll share a virtual bottle of Champagne with me ;)

Also, the rsyslog community needs sincere thanks. Without folks that spread word and help others get rsyslog going this project wouldn’t see the success it experiences today.

I am very happy to have rsyslog now running by default on Fedora and Debian, as well as a myriad of derivates. Thanks to everyone who helped made this happen. So on to a nice, little celebration!

Thanks again,
Rainer

PS: promise: we’ll keep rsyslog in excellent shape and continue in our quest for a world-class syslog and event processing subsystem!

I had an interesting question on the rsyslog mailing list that boils down to when rsyslog closes output files. So I thought I talk a bit about it in my blog, too.

What we need to look at is when a file is closed. It is closed when there is need to. So, when is there need? There are currently three cases where need arises

a) HUP or restart
b) output channel max size logic
c) change in filename (for dynafiles, only)

I think a) needs no further explanation. Case b) should also be self-explanatory: if an output channel is set to a maximum size, and that size is reached, the file is closed and a new one re-opened. So for the time being let’s focus on case c):

I simplified a bit. Actually, the file is not closed immediately when the file name changes. The file is kept open, in a kind of cache. So when the very same file name is used again, the file descriptor is taken from the cache and there is no need to call open and close APIs (very time consuming). The usual case is that something like HOSTNAME or TAG is used in dynamic filename generation. In these cases, it is quite common that a small set of different filenames is written to. So with the cache logic, we can ensure that we have good performance no matter in what order messages come in (generally, they appear random and thus there is a large probability that the next message will go to a different file on a sufficiently busy system). A file is actually closed only if the cache runs out of space (or cases a) or b) above happen).

Let’s look at how this works. We have the following message sequence:

Host Msg
A    M1
A    M2
B    Ma
A    M3
B    Mb

and we have a filename template, for simplicity, that consists of only %HOSTNAME%. What now happens is that with the first message the file “A” is opened. Obviously, messages M1 and M2 are written to file “A”. Now, Ma comes in from host B. If the name is newly evaluated, Ma is written to file B. Then, M3 again to file A and Mb to file B.

As you can see, the messages are put into the right files, and these files are only opened once. So far, they have not been closed (and will not until either a) happens), because we have just two file descriptors and those can easily be kept in cache (the current default for the cache size, I think, 100).

I hope this is useful information.