logrotate(8) and copytruncate as default
P J P
pj.pandit at yahoo.co.in
Thu Jun 27 17:42:53 UTC 2013
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jan Kaluza <jkaluza at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: logrotate(8) and copytruncate as default
> Right now, without locking, logrotate would loss more messages if the
> logs are big, because copying takes more time. It would be interesting
> to mention the file size in your tests too. But as I said, if the
> exclusive lock pauses the writing operations to the lock file, you
> won't be able to reproduce it with your current reproducer.
I can understand, if log files run into GBs, copying those would take time,
and till that time kernel will have to buffer those suspended write operations
and corresponding data.
I'll try another experiment. Let's let the first command create large(1-2 GB) log file,
and then do flock, followed by copy-truncate.
More information about the devel