[Spread-users] Apache Logs sent using spread.

Babu, Suresh Suresh.Babu at corp.aol.com
Fri Jun 6 09:25:03 EDT 2008

Thanks for response. Answers in line 

-----Original Message-----
From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:tcurdt at vafer.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:40 PM
To: Babu, Suresh
Cc: spread-users at lists.spread.org; Holsman, Ian
Subject: Re: [Spread-users] Apache Logs sent using spread.

>     I have a sender application(similar to cronolog) which sends the 
> log messages from Apache to Spread daemon.

You mean cron-like ...not as they arrive?
<<<<< YES >>>>>

> I have a receiver application which receives messages from the spread 
> daemon (Both communicate using a common group).
> I have few question regarding this.
> 1) Can you suggest a better application which can recieve log messages

> from multiple Apache servers and log them into a central repository.
>     It has to be reliable and fault tolerant like spread.

I am wondering why you are looking into an alternative ....because I am
currently looking into setting something like that up for us.
<<<<< Trying to find out if there better ones >>>>>>

>  2) I connect to a spread daemon running on a partcular system. I 
> would like to know, what happens when the spread daemon itself dies.

Well, apache will not be able to send the message to the ring. Up to you
how you deal with that I guess.

>     Is there a way the communication still happen between the sender 
> and receiver through a different daemon automatically. If it can, can 
> you suggest how?

I think mod_log_spread has a fall back. But I couldn't get
mod_log_spread to work properly ...and it does not support error logs

So I have patched rotatelogs to push the logs into the spread ring.
<<<< Will you be able to share the patch of rotatelogs for me >>>>>>>

I find the spread situation quite bad. No spread4 in debian/ubuntu. No
easy to install mod_log_spread. Not that nice.
There are many things to improve (handling of config errors is
terrible!) but I see no progress. Wondering about the project health

>  3) In a spread_segment of the configuration we have multiple IP 
> addresses of different daemons.
>     ex:-  spread_segment {
>                                     machineA
>                                     machineB
>                                     machineC
>             }
>     However, A sender through the API's has to explicitly connect to a

> single daemon on a system. I am curious as to why we have multiple 
> systems in a spread segment.

You mean why the whole ring needs to be defined/configured on each an
every machine participating?
<<<< Asbsolutely >>>>>
<<<< What is the communication between different daemons configured >>>>


More information about the Spread-users mailing list