Francis Swasey wrote: > On 3/10/09 12:20 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> --On Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:49 AM -0400 Francis Swasey > >>> To be specific, there are changes that make it into the master server, >>> and the auditlog overlay logs them, but the accesslog overlay does NOT >>> put them in the accesslog database, so they do not get sent to the >>> replica servers. >>> >>> It seems to be some kind of race condition. I haven't figured out a way >>> to reproduce the failure yet. >> Oh, you have auditlog in place too? I don't believe you mentioned that >> before. I bet it is related to them both being enabled. > > It is the first time I've mentioned it in this thread, but I've > mentioned it in previous threads. > > So -- why would having auditlog and accesslog (and syncprov) all used > with a database cause accesslog to miss some of the changes? > Why not just have another process suck out the contents of accesslog you're interested in auditing and write it to a log file. Having both overlays is kinda redundant. -- Russell A. Jackson <raj@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield Life is like a tin of sardines. We're, all of us, looking for the key. -- Beyond the Fringe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature