Re: [PATCH] Re: general/1555: excessive error log messages ...

[Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>]

Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> Then how about Roy answers all the PRs related to them.  ;)
> 
> Seriously, we should change the message at the very least.  Something so
> that we don't have to explain to folks that they're "normal".  If they're
> not really "normal" then something is subtly broken with the server... but
> I don't really have any reason to believe that.
> 
> When I surf I hit ESC a bunch, and I know each time I do that I'm probably
> putting a few "send body lost connection" into the logs.  I really don't
> see what use they are to the admin given that this is probably a really
> common occurance.
> 
> Does anyone do anything useful with these warnings?
> 
> Dean
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> > > > Synopsis: excessive  error log messages ... "send body lost connection to:
> > >xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx : Broken pipe"
> > >
> > >How about logging these errors at 'notice' level instead of 'warn'?
> >
> > -1.  They are warnings.  Besides, we treat the 'notice' level as
> > being more important than 'warn', resulting in a message regardless
> > of the loglevel.  APLOG_NOTICE is only used for things that we
> > absolutely want to appear in the log.
> >
I agree with Roy. The reasons for his -1 are the reasons we added
'warning' level logging to Apache in the first place. They replaced
timeout errors, if I remember correctly.
-- 
chuck
Chuck Murcko            The Topsail Group             West Chester PA
USA
chuck@topsail.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: general/1555: excessive error log messages ...

[Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>]

Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Roy. The reasons for his -1 are the reasons we added
> > 'warning' level logging to Apache in the first place. They replaced
> > timeout errors, if I remember correctly.
> 
> Neither of you have yet to explain how this "warning" is of any use
> though.  To me it represents the normal situation -- browsers close
> connections half way through a response all the time; and users get
> kicked off their modems all the time (call waiting, whatever), and are
> replaced with another user at the same ip -- leading to RST.
> 
>     if (sig == SIGPIPE) {
>         ap_snprintf(errstr, sizeof(errstr), "%s lost connection to %s",
>                     timeout_name ? timeout_name : "request",
>                     get_remote_host(current_conn, dirconf, REMOTE_NAME));
>     }
>     else {
>         ap_snprintf(errstr, sizeof(errstr), "%s timed out for %s",
>                     timeout_name ? timeout_name : "request",
>                     get_remote_host(current_conn, dirconf, REMOTE_NAME));
>     }
> 
> So these errors occur whenever there's an RST.
> 
> Oh yeah and win95 boxes never FIN connections, they always RST them.
> Leading to races which can generate SIGPIPE.
> 
> Doesn't acroread also cause this due to its moving around within a
> byte-range served file?
> 
> Maybe I'm totally wrong.  But if it's confusing to me then it's probably
> confusing to our users.
> 
I believe we were getting swamped with bug reports about the timeout
errors. The warning was an attempt to downgrade them in apparent
severity. While most of the time they're normal, they may also point to
excessive packet loss or lack of capacity on the outbound link. That's
why I'd be reticent to just lose them, unless we wanted to replace them
with some kind of configurable timeout rate trigger mechanism that would
scream when too many timeouts happened in a givin sample period.
-- 
chuck
Chuck Murcko            The Topsail Group             West Chester PA
USA
chuck@topsail.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: general/1555: excessive error log messages ...

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Chuck Murcko wrote:

> I agree with Roy. The reasons for his -1 are the reasons we added
> 'warning' level logging to Apache in the first place. They replaced
> timeout errors, if I remember correctly.

Neither of you have yet to explain how this "warning" is of any use
though.  To me it represents the normal situation -- browsers close
connections half way through a response all the time; and users get
kicked off their modems all the time (call waiting, whatever), and are
replaced with another user at the same ip -- leading to RST.

    if (sig == SIGPIPE) {
        ap_snprintf(errstr, sizeof(errstr), "%s lost connection to %s",
                    timeout_name ? timeout_name : "request",
                    get_remote_host(current_conn, dirconf, REMOTE_NAME));
    }
    else {
        ap_snprintf(errstr, sizeof(errstr), "%s timed out for %s",
                    timeout_name ? timeout_name : "request",
                    get_remote_host(current_conn, dirconf, REMOTE_NAME));
    }

So these errors occur whenever there's an RST.

Oh yeah and win95 boxes never FIN connections, they always RST them.
Leading to races which can generate SIGPIPE.

Doesn't acroread also cause this due to its moving around within a
byte-range served file?

Maybe I'm totally wrong.  But if it's confusing to me then it's probably
confusing to our users.

Dean