httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <>
Subject Re: More on logging
Date Thu, 08 Jun 1995 11:58:56 GMT
> Yes. Brilliant.  Also, if the logging process did *not* receive a "logit" 
> after some length of time (Rob suggested ETIME?) then all that info would 
> be written to the error log, making debugging a snap.

It doesn't have to wait for any *time*, it just has to detect that
it has received a second STIME (start time), before an ETIME. At that point
it knows something went wrong.

Re: FIFO, is the suggestion to have the parent (default) logger write
to a pipe/socket too ?

I was think more along the lines of the logging process getting info
from children and then it logs it to a standard file or set of files.
If a replacement logging process is configured, the children talk directly
to it, and not the parent.

> Can the logging process keep track of which child is sending it a 
> message, if they all have the same pipe open?  How would this be done in 
> Perl?  If not, some sort of unique ID needs to be transmitted so that the 
> logging process can assemble the record back together.  

Under 0.7.x each child (and any replacement child) will have a unique
0-N id. That should be passed with all child->host xfer.

> > > I still think the children should send pieces of loggable info, as 
> > > and when they feel like, and in no particular order. This'll make
> > > configuration of logging *much* easier in the long term.
> > > IMO, CLF II should define how the info is passed... preferably in
> > > some abbreviated form..
> > 
> > I agree with this model. I would however like to make the issue
> > of whether or not to send headers configureable. Should be easy
> > to toggle.
> I'm concerned about overhead, but we need a bake-off to know for sure.

Overhead on your 30 child system running with a load of 0.05  ?   :-)

Rob Hartill                  

View raw message