Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <43427B1A.4060107@turner.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:52:42 -0400
From: Brian Akins <brian.akins@turner.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Pluggable mod_log_config
References: <434150EB.2080007@turner.com> <20051003222814.GA7331@stdlib.net>
 <43427774.5050605@turner.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510040840140.17496@ns.istop.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510040840140.17496@ns.istop.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
> I run a system with about 250 virtual hosts averaging around 100 hits per
> second with little problem.

100 hits per second is not that much relative to what we do.  We may be 
more of an extreme case, though.


  Rather than having a piped log for each
> virtual host though, we only use one piped log for every virtual host, and
> add in the host name into the log. Your logging program then has ot have
> the smarts to figure out which virtual host the log is for, but that is
> relatively easy and inexpensive.


Yes, but Apache already knows what virtual host a log line, so it seems 
redundant to do it again in the external program.

I would agree, for 90+% of users, piped logs are probably fine.  But, 
for the rest of us, it seems like we ought to be able to come up with 
some "standard" way of doing high-performance flexible logging.  If 
nothing else but to have more eyes on the code and techniques.


-- 
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies