Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA13242; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [204.62.130.91]) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA13226 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19272 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 1997 19:32:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:32:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Dean Gaudet To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] buffered logs In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970826121827.008bd560@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Oh this doesn't implement that fragment proposal. These logs are normal logs, just the hits don't appear in as close chronological order ... and if you kill -9 your servers for god knows what reason, you lose log entries. Dean On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > At 01:37 AM 8/26/97 -0700, Dean Gaudet wrote: > >I never got time to make this a runtime option. But here it is as a > >compile-time option. It only seems worth about 4% more r/s in some lame > >benchmarking I did. Not a heck of a lot... but that number probably > >differs on different unixes. > > This seems good. I'm not a fan of the proposal to log fragments of entries > then reassemble them later. There might be a big difference in savings > depending on the hardware configuration too, particularly for those folk > who have logfiles and htdocs on the same partition of the same disk. :) > > Brian > > > --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- > "Why not?" - TL brian@organic.com - hyperreal.org - apache.org >