You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Lars Eilebrecht <la...@hyperreal.org> on 1999/12/18 14:29:43 UTC
Re: reworking of cronolog as mod_cronolog (or folding into mod_l
According to Manoj Kasichainula:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:27:27PM +0100, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > So, if we HAVE a logresolve, there's no additional "bundling a bunch
> > of stuff".
> [...]
> > But I'm
> > +2
> > for replacing logresolve by cronolog ASAP.
>
> You've convinced me. +1
> --
> Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
+1 to add cronolog (as a program not as module) for 1.3.10.
How about extending mod_log_config with the cronolog features for 2.0?
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - I really don't think...
lars@hyperreal.org - that these signatures are random...
Re: reworking of cronolog as mod_cronolog (or folding into mod_l
Posted by Scott Hess <sc...@avantgo.com>.
As I understand cronolog, it tries to log lines perfectly to logs for the
appropriate time periods (based on the beginning of the request, or the
end? Makes little difference, I suppose). So sending a SIGUSR1 might
result in a few lines sneaking from the previous day's logs to the next.
If a cronolog module wants to be able to "perfectly" split across logs
based on time, the parent could open two logfiles (one for the current
period, one for the next period), then the children could internally switch
to the next logfile at the appropriate time. After the next period begins,
a SIGUSR1 to the parent should work to progress forward to the next
logfile.
Later,
scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Mch.SNI.De>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: reworking of cronolog as mod_cronolog (or folding into mod_l
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 08:43:31PM +0100, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > I can only decide about it when I know how the ownership will be
handled.
> > +1 if nothing changes against the current situation (except for the
added
> > functionality).
>
> I imagine that the reopening of the logfiles could be limited to the
> point(s) in time where the server is restarted. Simply sending a SIGUSR1
> at midnight would automatically rotate "per day" (combined with the
> modifications of mod_log_config, and an appropriate configuration) or
> per month or whatever.
>
> Martin
> --
> <Ma...@MchP.Siemens.De> | Fujitsu Siemens
> <ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: reworking of cronolog as mod_cronolog (or folding into mod_l
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Mch.SNI.De>.
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 08:43:31PM +0100, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> I can only decide about it when I know how the ownership will be handled.
> +1 if nothing changes against the current situation (except for the added
> functionality).
I imagine that the reopening of the logfiles could be limited to the
point(s) in time where the server is restarted. Simply sending a SIGUSR1
at midnight would automatically rotate "per day" (combined with the
modifications of mod_log_config, and an appropriate configuration) or
per month or whatever.
Martin
--
<Ma...@MchP.Siemens.De> | Fujitsu Siemens
<ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: reworking of cronolog as mod_cronolog (or folding into mod_l
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Mch.SNI.De>.
On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 02:29:43PM +0100, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>
> +1 to add cronolog (as a program not as module) for 1.3.10.
> How about extending mod_log_config with the cronolog features for 2.0?
I can only decide about it when I know how the ownership will be handled.
+1 if nothing changes against the current situation (except for the added
functionality).
Martin
--
<Ma...@MchP.Siemens.De> | Fujitsu Siemens
<ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany