No, the overhead is not really an issue. It is just one more process to keep track of, and a potential vulnerability, but it is minimal.
Cheers,
Jonathan
From: Ondřej Surý [mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 3:42 PM
To: <jh@netriplex.com>
Cc: <knot-dns-users@lists.nic.cz>
Subject: Re: [knot-dns-users] syslog server?
Ah, sorry, I didn't get that before. We might add that to our todo list and add it to some future version. Anyway is the overhead through local syslog that big?
Ondřej Surý
On 9. 3. 2013, at 21:18, <jh@netriplex.com> wrote:
Thanks,
I was looking for the ability to send directly and not to have the local syslog daemon forward/relay it. But we can do that.
Jonathan
From: Ondřej Surý [mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 2:34 PM
To: <jh@netriplex.com>
Cc: <knot-dns-users@lists.nic.cz>
Subject: Re: [knot-dns-users] syslog server?
Hi Jonathan,
syslog is already there, see the full knot.conf sample: https://redmine.labs.nic.cz/projects/knot-dns/repository/revisions/master/entry/samples/knot.full.conf
Or example in the user manual:
On 9. 3. 2013, at 14:59, <jh@netriplex.com> wrote:Hello,
Is there any plan to add the ability to allow logging to a syslog server vs.
a log file?
Regards,
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
knot-dns-users mailing list
knot-dns-users@lists.nic.cz
https://lists.nic.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns-users