> you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog
That's a contradiction. You're running journald even if it's dead weight.
And if journald goes belly up, no logs for syslog...
As if syslog cannot go belly up as well.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that logind (a new codebase) is about as stable as syslog (anyone of which are several years old, well tested). Layering one on top of the other, you now have doubled the chance of one of them going belly up.
When have you ever seen syslog go belly up?
Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux
by general_failure on Friday November 21, 2014 @10:26AM
(#8641667)
You are clearly too young to remember. But don't worry journal will get there
That's the entire point. Syslog has years of stability and reliability. You don't just throw that away, especially for such an important role.
Can you assure it is 100% failure proof in all UNIX variants that have one running?
Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux
by the_mitsuhiko on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:12AM
(#8640463)
And if syslog goes belly up no logs. What's your point?
So now instead of syslog we have journald AND syslog - we only doubled the risk of something going boom and taking away our ability to log. I don't think that's nice.
You used have one component that needed to fail to start losing logs. Now you have two.
Technically its really just a socket dup
Using sane/standard logging should be the first thing an installer asks before installing systemd based OS. In fact, just make separate .isos for this.
(and I like systemd, at least in theory - and running Fedora 20).
at my place we kept both journald and have rsyslog to redirect logs to the network. ie our /var/log is relatively empty (rsyslog isnt setup to log to disk) so we look at log on the machine via journald if needed (rarely - since we look at the central log aggregator instead)