Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

dns lookups with webalizer win32 port??

Expand Messages
  • eichef@gmx.de
    Is it possible to use dns lookups with the webalizer win32 port? On our system, webalizer seems to freeze, if this is enabled in the configuration file. With
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Is it possible to use dns lookups with the webalizer win32 port? On
      our system, webalizer seems to freeze, if this is enabled in the
      configuration file. With strg-c, we can end webalizer.

      Is there any (automated) way to get the dns names for all ip
      adresses? Maybe an add-on or something similar?

      Webalizer runs fine on our webserver (windows nt4, IIS4), but we need
      the dns names...

      Thanks for your support

      Frank
    • Klaus Mueller
      ... I don t think that webalizer is stopped. The DNS lookup takes significant longer then normal processing. ... There are some tools for unix but I to not
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        > Is it possible to use dns lookups with the webalizer win32 port? On
        > our system, webalizer seems to freeze, if this is enabled in the
        > configuration file. With strg-c, we can end webalizer.

        I don't think that webalizer is stopped. The DNS lookup takes significant
        longer then normal processing.

        > Is there any (automated) way to get the dns names for all ip
        > adresses? Maybe an add-on or something similar?

        There are some tools for unix but I to not know a ported version.

        > Webalizer runs fine on our webserver (windows nt4, IIS4), but we need
        > the dns names...

        You may wait some time before ending webalizer. You can try a smaller log
        file first to get the relation of runtime between non DNS processing and DNS
        processing (around 500 log lines).

        You may also check the last iX from Heise. There is a script for really fast
        logfile DNS lookups. The article is online at
        http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2000/12/149/.

        Bye
        Klaus
      • HAYART Jean Noel
        in case of Reverse lookup failed (when DNS can t resolve IP - Name) function wait for time out cause dns don t send answers. it s for this purpose, i
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          in case of Reverse lookup failed (when DNS can't resolve IP -> Name)
          function wait for time out cause dns don't send answers.

          it's for this purpose, i implement a cache with bad DSN for improve time
          resolution.

          i see in somes log files, a very long time to reverse lookup, 45 minutes for
          200 000 lines ... and next time with use cache only 35 secondes for same
          work.

          can you configure webalizer for only a file and wait messages :
          - if CPU is used at 100% (perhaps bug of infinite loop inside code)
          - if CPU seems don't work (webalizer waiting for answer from DNS)



          i try when i finish a lot of new modification (like XML) to take a look at
          multithreads resolution ...

          Regards.


          Jean Noel HAYART
          -----Message d'origine-----
          De : eichef@... [mailto:eichef@...]
          Envoy� : mardi 28 novembre 2000 09:15
          � : webalizer@egroups.com
          Objet : [webalizer] dns lookups with webalizer win32 port??


          Is it possible to use dns lookups with the webalizer win32 port? On
          our system, webalizer seems to freeze, if this is enabled in the
          configuration file. With strg-c, we can end webalizer.

          Is there any (automated) way to get the dns names for all ip
          adresses? Maybe an add-on or something similar?

          Webalizer runs fine on our webserver (windows nt4, IIS4), but we need
          the dns names...

          Thanks for your support

          Frank



          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          webalizer-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          Webalizer homepage: http://www.webalizer.org
          Webalizer for NT: http://www.medasys-lille.com/webalizer/
          (Old URL: http://private.homepages.intershop.de/klaus/webalizer/)
        • Günther Eisele
          Hi, ... A general question: I m using V2.00-12 with dns lookup activated, on a normal win2000 or win98 workstation without permanent internet connection. I
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            >> Is it possible to use dns lookups with the webalizer win32 port? On
            >> our system, webalizer seems to freeze, if this is enabled in the
            >> configuration file. With strg-c, we can end webalizer.

            > I don't think that webalizer is stopped. The DNS lookup takes significant
            > longer then normal processing.

            A general question: I'm using V2.00-12 with dns lookup activated, on a
            normal win2000 or win98 workstation without permanent internet connection.

            I have one logfile, and I copy my weekly updates into this logfile. When I
            re-run webalizer, the complete lookup is done again.

            Then I installed the newest version from

            www.medasys-lille.com/webalizer

            and set the TtlDns to 100, because I want to keep all records (btw: what
            is the maximum of this entry)? Well, it doesn't work, no dns lookup was
            made at all. This version made normal processing without any dns. I then
            replaced the new webalizer.exe with the older one, and it worked again.

            Two questions: Is my strategy (one logfile, copy updates into that
            logfile, re-run webalizer) simply, ehm, "sub optimal"?[1]

            Does using the incremental processing prevent webalizer from re-processing
            the complete dns file each time it's run? Does it only work with 'update
            files' or also with my single logfile (which is in fact quite small)?

            TIA & best regards
            Günther

            [1] I have one single file because I have to rework my logfiles with sed,
            because my provider doesn't have standard logfiles. It's easier to do this
            on one big file; but of course I can rework all those update files, if it
            makes more sense to you.
          • Klaus Mueller
            ... Why do not use incremental mode? ... The rework is faster on a smaller log file. ... Incremental mode use DNS for the new log entries only. But the dns
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              > I have one logfile, and I copy my weekly updates into this
              > logfile. When I
              > re-run webalizer, the complete lookup is done again.

              Why do not use incremental mode?

              > Two questions: Is my strategy (one logfile, copy updates into that
              > logfile, re-run webalizer) simply, ehm, "sub optimal"?[1]

              The rework is faster on a smaller log file.

              > Does using the incremental processing prevent webalizer from
              > re-processing
              > the complete dns file each time it's run? Does it only work
              > with 'update
              > files' or also with my single logfile (which is in fact quite small)?

              Incremental mode use DNS for the new log entries only. But the "dns cache
              file" is used if the timeout is large enougt (I think default is 3 days).

              > TIA & best regards
              > Günther
              >
              > [1] I have one single file because I have to rework my
              > logfiles with sed,
              > because my provider doesn't have standard logfiles. It's
              > easier to do this
              > on one big file; but of course I can rework all those update
              > files, if it makes more sense to you.

              I'll suggest small weekly files and not one big.

              Be
              Klaus
            • Günther Eisele
              Klaus, thanks for your quick answer. ... Because I thought it s not possible with one logfile (from the config file): # Incremental processing allows multiple
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Klaus,

                thanks for your quick answer.

                >> I have one logfile, and I copy my weekly updates into this
                >> logfile. When I
                >> re-run webalizer, the complete lookup is done again.

                > Why do not use incremental mode?

                Because I thought it's not possible with one logfile (from the config
                file):

                # Incremental processing allows multiple partial log files to be used
                # instead of one huge one. Useful for large sites that have to rotate

                But if incremental is possible on one single file and on additional files,
                I will of course use this one. If it doesn't work, I will switch to
                additonal files.

                >> Two questions: Is my strategy (one logfile, copy updates into that
                >> logfile, re-run webalizer) simply, ehm, "sub optimal"?[1]

                > The rework is faster on a smaller log file.

                Well, I will never have logfiles which are really big, so I thought it's
                less work for me to do the rework just in one file...

                > Incremental mode use DNS for the new log entries only.

                This is perfect.

                > But the "dns cache
                > file" is used if the timeout is large enougt (I think default is 3 days).

                Hm, I think I don't understand that. Does it mean: When processing the new
                log entries, webalizer looks up the ips in the dns_cache, if the timeout
                is large enough, and just in case it doesn't find the ips there, it does a
                dns lookup? Is there a disadvantage when setting this timeout to 99999?

                How does webalizer V2.00-12 handle that? It hasn't got these timeout
                entries. My problem: If I just replace the webalizer.exe with the new one
                (with adjusted entries in the according *.conf file), it doesn't work, so I
                actually want to keep the old version.

                Bye
                Günther
              • Klaus Mueller
                ... You do not get the new hostname if the DNS changes. But this does not happen very frequently. You may set the value to 2-4 weeks. ... I don t know how the
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Hm, I think I don't understand that. Does it mean: When
                  > processing the new
                  > log entries, webalizer looks up the ips in the dns_cache, if
                  > the timeout
                  > is large enough, and just in case it doesn't find the ips
                  > there, it does a
                  > dns lookup? Is there a disadvantage when setting this timeout
                  > to 99999?

                  You do not get the new hostname if the DNS changes. But this does not happen
                  very frequently. You may set the value to 2-4 weeks.

                  > How does webalizer V2.00-12 handle that? It hasn't got these timeout
                  > entries. My problem: If I just replace the webalizer.exe with
                  > the new one
                  > (with adjusted entries in the according *.conf file), it
                  > doesn't work, so I
                  > actually want to keep the old version.

                  I don't know how the new version work because I doesn't maintain it anymore
                  because I'm short of time.

                  Klaus
                • Günther Eisele
                  Hi, ... OK, my thinking here was wrong. With the incremental setting, the original access of course keeps the old name , 99999 doesn t make sense. ... [...]
                  Message 8 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    > You do not get the new hostname if the DNS changes. But this does not happen
                    > very frequently. You may set the value to 2-4 weeks.

                    OK, my thinking here was wrong. With the incremental setting, the original
                    access of course keeps the "old name", 99999 doesn't make sense.

                    >> How does webalizer V2.00-12 handle that? It hasn't got these timeout
                    >> entries.
                    [...]

                    > I don't know how the new version work because I doesn't maintain it anymore
                    > because I'm short of time.

                    OK, but can you tell me how the old version works? I think V2.00-12 is
                    the last one from you (?).

                    Bye
                    Günther
                  • HAYART Jean Noel
                    Hi ... Webalizer detect need of dns resolution when you use var DNSCache, if i remember it s a new tag .. cause in first port of webalizer, resolution is made
                    Message 9 of 9 , Nov 28, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi

                      > -----Message d'origine-----
                      > De : Klaus Mueller [mailto:k.mueller@...]
                      > Envoy� : mardi 28 novembre 2000 15:24
                      > � : 'webalizer@egroups.com'
                      > Objet : RE: [webalizer] dns lookups with webalizer win32 port??
                      >
                      >
                      > > Hm, I think I don't understand that. Does it mean: When
                      > > processing the new
                      > > log entries, webalizer looks up the ips in the dns_cache, if
                      > > the timeout
                      > > is large enough, and just in case it doesn't find the ips
                      > > there, it does a
                      > > dns lookup? Is there a disadvantage when setting this timeout
                      > > to 99999?
                      >
                      > You do not get the new hostname if the DNS changes. But this does
                      > not happen
                      > very frequently. You may set the value to 2-4 weeks.
                      >
                      > > How does webalizer V2.00-12 handle that? It hasn't got these timeout
                      > > entries. My problem: If I just replace the webalizer.exe with
                      > > the new one
                      > > (with adjusted entries in the according *.conf file), it
                      > > doesn't work, so I
                      > > actually want to keep the old version.
                      >
                      > I don't know how the new version work because I doesn't maintain
                      > it anymore
                      > because I'm short of time.
                      >
                      > Klaus

                      Webalizer detect need of dns resolution when you use var DNSCache,
                      if i remember it's a new tag .. cause in first port of webalizer,
                      resolution is made but not store, (dnscache is not used).

                      For new tag :
                      DSNttl - is time to live in cache for good resolution.
                      DSNTTlerror - is time to live for bad resolution

                      Jean Noel

                      >
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > webalizer-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > Webalizer homepage: http://www.webalizer.org
                      > Webalizer for NT: http://www.medasys-lille.com/webalizer/
                      > (Old URL: http://private.homepages.intershop.de/klaus/webalizer/)
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.