Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 58339 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2008 15:49:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Sep 2008 15:49:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30680 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2008 15:49:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 30658 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2008 15:49:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 30649 invoked by uid 99); 19 Sep 2008 15:49:40 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:49:40 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jim@jagunet.com designates 209.133.199.10 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.133.199.10] (HELO jimsys.jaguNET.com) (209.133.199.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:48:41 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jimsys.jaguNET.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBAE36AA23E for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: From: Jim Jagielski To: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: <66d2e0420e858f66fa43bc061441b97b.squirrel@danpoirier.homeunix.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: More accurate logging of requests per connection X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:48:42 -0400 References: <48CFF36B.7000609@pobox.com> <66d2e0420e858f66fa43bc061441b97b.squirrel@danpoirier.homeunix.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Sep 19, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Dan Poirier wrote: > On Fri, September 19, 2008 11:18 am, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> A better interpretation would be, I think, the number of keepalive >> requests on that connection. So a '1' would be the 1st keepalive >> request, 2 would be the 2nd, etc... So a '0' would be the >> initial request, and would be applicable whether keepalives >> are enabled or not. This would make the logic simpler. > > That works. The remaining issue, which is minor, is that since > ap_set_keepalive() doesn't increment connection->keepalives on the > last request, the value logged will be N-1 for both the N-1 and N'th > keepalive request. But I don't imagine most connections will ever > see the N'th keepalive request. Unless it is small, agreed... still, might be worthwhile to handle it as you suggest anyway. :)