Bug 2027971

Summary: [RFE]: Request to add "mmfields.so" module in rsyslog
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 Reporter: Attila Lakatos <alakatos>
Component: rsyslogAssignee: Sergio Arroutbi <sarroutb>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Dalibor Pospíšil <dapospis>
Severity: medium Docs Contact: Jan Fiala <jafiala>
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 9.0CC: dapospis, duge, jafiala, pasik, pjasbuti, rsroka, sarroutb
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: AutoVerified, FutureFeature, Triaged
Target Release: ---Flags: pm-rhel: mirror+
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: rsyslog-8.2102.0-100.el9 Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
.Rsyslog includes the `mmfields` module for higher-performance operations and CEF Rsyslog now includes the `rsyslog-mmfields` subpackage which provides the `mmfields` module. This is an alternative to using the property replacer field extraction, but in contrast to the property replacer, all fields are extracted at once and stored inside the structured data part. As a result, you can use `mmfields` particularly for processing field-based log formats, for example Common Event Format (CEF), and if you need a large number of fields or reuse specific fields. In these cases, `mmfields` has better performance than existing Rsyslog features.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 1947907 Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-05-17 12:58:55 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 1947907    
Bug Blocks:    
Deadline: 2022-02-07   

Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2022-05-17 12:58:55 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (new packages: rsyslog), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:2429