F21 Self Contained Change: Remote Journal Logging

Lennart Poettering mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Wed Apr 23 03:36:23 UTC 2014

On Tue, 22.04.14 09:10, Simo Sorce (simo at redhat.com) wrote:

> > I am pretty sure that a pull model should be the default for everything
> > we do, and push only be done where realtimish behaviour is desired to do
> > live debugging or suchlike.
> > 
> > I am pretty sure the push model concept is one of the major weaknesses
> > of the BSD syslog protocol.
> Except that the server may not need direct access to the clients (in
> NATted LANs for examples), so sometimes push is all you can count on,
> make sure you can think how to properly rate limit, give feedback to
> clients if necessary. A good protocol would allow to send a first small
> packet that establish a connection and a reply that can "push back" on
> the client w/o requiring huge bandwidth to be spent.

Well, you can always turn the NAT problem around. Sometimes it's the log
server behind the NAT that is the problem, sometimes it it is the log
client behind the NAT that is the pronlem. If you consider push vs. pull
then you simply reverse which one is the bigger issue.

Note that the journal protocol is HTTP, so it's probably as proxy and
NAT-friendly as it gets.


Lennart Poettering, Red Hat

More information about the devel mailing list