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

Re: [webalizer] Old reports are (sometimes) flushed

Expand Messages
  • Kees de Keizer
    ... If I had to use it that way, it s complete useless for me. Our customers don t want info once a month. For our production machines we use a daily run
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Bradford L. Barrett wrote on 06-02-2003:

      > [Using Incremental mode on live logs]
      > And you won't notice any 'trouble'.. the program was designed to be run
      > once a month against a full months worth of logs.. _only_ if you need to
      > rotate more than once a month should you use Incremental mode, and then,
      > only against the _rotated_ log file.

      If I had to use it that way, it's complete useless for me. Our
      customers don't want info once a month. For our production machines
      we use a daily run around midnight.

      > Depending on site traffic, I have seen upwards of 5-10% data loss
      > when trying to run against a live log using incremental mode.
      > Nothing will appear out of the ordinary except your numbers will
      > be inaccurate, and you generally will never know it.

      There is no way to give accurate data. Whether you use log files
      or a javascript utily on the site. And I don't believe I'm having
      5-10% data loss during the 12-15 minutes webalizer runs each day.

      > If you want to run against live logs, disable incremental mode.

      Thanks for the tip, but that will make it completely useless
      for me and our customers.
      --
      Kees de Keizer NT Administrator T: +31-10-2448344
      #easynet Nederland PGP: 0x24E3770B F: +31-10-2448356
      http://www.easynet.nl/ kees.de.keizer@...
      We take the loads from off the roads [Starlight Express]
    • Stanley Stramel
      I agree! Our customers require that we have near live stats. Bradford, is the loss of data occrring during the Webalizer is running on the live log file and
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree!  Our customers require that we have near live stats.
         
        Bradford, is the loss of data occrring during the Webalizer is running on the live log file and it may be dropping records that are being added to the log file during that execution?
         
        Stan
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Kees de Keizer [mailto:kees.de.keizer@...]
        Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:45 AM
        To: Bradford L. Barrett
        Cc: webalizer@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [webalizer] Old reports are (sometimes) flushed

        Bradford L. Barrett wrote on 06-02-2003:

        > [Using Incremental mode on live logs]
        > And you won't notice any 'trouble'.. the program was designed to be run
        > once a month against a full months worth of logs.. _only_ if you need to
        > rotate more than once a month should you use Incremental mode, and then,
        > only against the _rotated_ log file.

        If I had to use it that way, it's complete useless for me. Our
        customers don't want info once a month. For our production machines
        we use a daily run around midnight.

        > Depending on site traffic, I have seen upwards of 5-10% data loss
        > when trying to run against a live log using incremental mode.
        > Nothing will appear out of the ordinary except your numbers will
        > be inaccurate, and you generally will never know it.

        There is no way to give accurate data. Whether you use log files
        or a javascript utily on the site. And I don't believe I'm having
        5-10% data loss during the 12-15 minutes webalizer runs each day.

        > If you want to run against live logs, disable incremental mode.

        Thanks for the tip, but that will make it completely useless
        for me and our customers.
        --
        Kees de Keizer          NT Administrator    T: +31-10-2448344
        #easynet Nederland      PGP:  0x24E3770B    F: +31-10-2448356
        http://www.easynet.nl/          kees.de.keizer@...
        We take the loads from off the roads [Starlight Express]

        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/




        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Bradford L. Barrett
        ... As do I.. actually, I run it twice a day, but _not_ in incremental mode. Data loss will occur otherwise, and the amount will be determined by the amount of
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > > [Using Incremental mode on live logs]
          > > And you won't notice any 'trouble'.. the program was designed to be run
          > > once a month against a full months worth of logs.. _only_ if you need to
          > > rotate more than once a month should you use Incremental mode, and then,
          > > only against the _rotated_ log file.
          >
          > If I had to use it that way, it's complete useless for me. Our
          > customers don't want info once a month. For our production machines
          > we use a daily run around midnight.

          As do I.. actually, I run it twice a day, but _not_ in incremental mode.
          Data loss will occur otherwise, and the amount will be determined by the
          amount of traffic the individual site generates.. small sites may not
          experience any.. large sites will experience a lot.

          > There is no way to give accurate data. Whether you use log files
          > or a javascript utily on the site.

          Huh?

          > And I don't believe I'm having 5-10% data loss during the 12-15 minutes
          > webalizer runs each day.

          Probably not.. depends on size of the site. The problem is not in the
          length of time to process, but the handling of timestamps in incremental
          mode. And you will not notice the loss unless you compare the results
          to those run the correct way. I've been doing this since 1997, and have
          done test results with hundreds of sites ranging in size from small
          mom and pop shops to huge porn sites with many millions of hits a day.
          Offically, you should never, ever, run against live logs when you are
          using incremental mode.. to do so means you run the risk of producing
          inaccurate results, with a greater risk the larger the site is. If you
          run in incremental mode, you should _only_ process rotated logs.. If
          you want to run against live logs, then disable incremental mode and
          run against them as much as you like.

          > > If you want to run against live logs, disable incremental mode.
          >
          > Thanks for the tip, but that will make it completely useless
          > for me and our customers.

          I fail to see why.. thosands of ISPs do it every day without a problem.

          --
          Bradford L. Barrett brad@...
          A free electron in a sea of neutrons DoD#1750 KD4NAW

          The only thing Micro$oft has done for society, is make people
          believe that computers are inherently unreliable.
        • Kees de Keizer
          ... Sorry, but if I had to do it that way, my servers would only be busy with generating stats. Maybe unix machine can handle multiple instances of webalizer
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Bradford L. Barrett wrote on 06-02-2003:

            > [Using Incremental mode on live logs]
            > > > .. the program was designed to be run once a month against
            > > > a full months worth of logs.. _only_ if you need to rotate
            > > > more than once a month should you use Incremental mode, and
            > > > then, only against the _rotated_ log file.
            > > If I had to use it that way, it's complete useless for me. Our
            > > customers don't want info once a month. For our production machines
            > > we use a daily run around midnight.
            > As do I.. actually, I run it twice a day, but _not_ in incremental mode.
            > Data loss will occur otherwise, and the amount will be determined by the
            > amount of traffic the individual site generates.. small sites may not
            > experience any.. large sites will experience a lot.

            Sorry, but if I had to do it that way, my servers would only be
            busy with generating stats. Maybe unix machine can handle multiple
            instances of webalizer better but on a windows machine the impact
            of running webalizer is quite high. That's why I run it around
            mignight on our production machines.

            > > There is no way to give accurate data. Whether you use log files
            > > or a javascript utily on the site.
            > Huh?

            In this case I was talking about actual site visitors. I.E. proxies
            do not generate a a log entry when they present the site to a visitor
            using that proxy.

            > If you run in incremental mode, you should _only_ process rotated
            > logs.. If you want to run against live logs, then disable incremental
            > mode and run against them as much as you like.

            Ask Bill if he can generate rotated logfiles with a different
            extension or any other way so they can be easily selected with
            a wildcard. Since this is not the case you have to run it against
            a live log file.

            > > > If you want to run against live logs, disable incremental mode.
            > > Thanks for the tip, but that will make it completely useless
            > > for me and our customers.
            > I fail to see why.. thosands of ISPs do it every day without a
            > problem.

            I never said I have a problem. You try to talk me into one.
            --
            Kees de Keizer NT Administrator T: +31-10-2448344
            #easynet Nederland PGP: 0x24E3770B F: +31-10-2448356
            http://www.easynet.nl/ kees.de.keizer@...
            Lovers are very special people [Funny Girl]
          • Bradford L. Barrett
            ... The limitations of your platform of choice is unfortunate.. however, the implication that it s ok to run against live logs when using incremental mode is
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              > Sorry, but if I had to do it that way, my servers would only be
              > busy with generating stats. Maybe unix machine can handle multiple
              > instances of webalizer better but on a windows machine the impact
              > of running webalizer is quite high. That's why I run it around
              > mignight on our production machines.

              The limitations of your platform of choice is unfortunate.. however,
              the implication that it's ok to run against live logs when using
              incremental mode is inaccurate, regardless of any justifications
              you can make.

              > > > There is no way to give accurate data. Whether you use log files
              > > > or a javascript utily on the site.
              > > Huh?
              >
              > In this case I was talking about actual site visitors. I.E. proxies
              > do not generate a a log entry when they present the site to a visitor
              > using that proxy.

              The webalizer was designed to give administrators insight into the usage
              of their servers, in order to provide insight into capacity planning and
              future direction. If a request is satisified from a proxy instead of
              hitting the server, that does not impact the analysis of server
              performance or usage from that standpoint. The program will provide
              accurate analysis of actual usage in every way with the exception of
              visit/entry/exit page analysis (as described in the documentation).

              > > If you run in incremental mode, you should _only_ process rotated
              > > logs.. If you want to run against live logs, then disable incremental
              > > mode and run against them as much as you like.
              >
              > Ask Bill if he can generate rotated logfiles with a different
              > extension or any other way so they can be easily selected with
              > a wildcard. Since this is not the case you have to run it against
              > a live log file.

              Again, the limitations of your platform of choice is not justification
              for giving people the incorrect assumption that it's ok to run against
              live logs in incremental mode. To do so is a disservice to those users.

              > > > > If you want to run against live logs, disable incremental mode.
              > > > Thanks for the tip, but that will make it completely useless
              > > > for me and our customers.
              > > I fail to see why.. thosands of ISPs do it every day without a
              > > problem.
              >
              > I never said I have a problem. You try to talk me into one.

              I took your statement to mean that it is impossible for you to use
              the program correctly (ie: to do so would "make it completely useless"),
              which I would view as a problem. Apparently, you don't think so.

              --
              Bradford L. Barrett brad@...
              A free electron in a sea of neutrons DoD#1750 KD4NAW

              How do you give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt when you
              know that if you were to throw it in a room with truth, you'd
              risk a matter/anti-matter explosion? -- Nicholas Petreley IDG
            • Kees de Keizer
              ... But not my choice. We have customers who want to write their websites in BASIC. ... If I want to know the traffic to a server, I ll ask our networking
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Bradford L. Barrett wrote:

                > > Sorry, but if I had to do it that way, my servers would only be
                > > busy with generating stats. Maybe unix machine can handle multiple
                > > instances of webalizer better but on a windows machine the impact
                > > of running webalizer is quite high. That's why I run it around
                > > mignight on our production machines.
                > The limitations of your platform of choice is unfortunate..

                But not my choice. We have customers who want to write their
                websites in BASIC.

                > > > > There is no way to give accurate data. Whether you use log files
                > > > > or a javascript utily on the site.
                > > > Huh?
                > > In this case I was talking about actual site visitors. I.E. proxies
                > > do not generate a a log entry when they present the site to a visitor
                > > using that proxy.
                > The webalizer was designed to give administrators insight into the usage
                > of their servers, in order to provide insight into capacity planning and
                > future direction. If a request is satisified from a proxy instead of
                > hitting the server, that does not impact the analysis of server
                > performance or usage from that standpoint. The program will provide
                > accurate analysis of actual usage in every way with the exception of
                > visit/entry/exit page analysis (as described in the documentation).

                If I want to know the traffic to a server, I'll ask our networking
                department for analysis. They can provide better traffic information
                that webalizer can, because they measure all the traffic. And nowadays
                webalizer is used very often to provide statistics to customers, so
                they can see when, what, how and with what their site has been visited.
                And they won't miss the 0,5% (if it is that much anyhow) in the stats.

                > Again, the limitations of your platform of choice is not justification
                > for giving people the incorrect assumption that it's ok to run against
                > live logs in incremental mode. To do so is a disservice to those users.

                I give our customers what they want: Site statistics. Our customers know
                that they are not 100% accurate if it concern page views and visits, due
                to the use of i.e. proxies. Webalizer is no longer a tool just for the
                administrators, but is more and more used for site statistics. Why would
                you else present referrers, user agents and countries? That information
                has nothing to do with analysis of the performance.

                > > I never said I have a problem. You try to talk me into one.
                > I took your statement to mean that it is impossible for you to use
                > the program correctly (ie: to do so would "make it completely useless"),
                > which I would view as a problem. Apparently, you don't think so.

                That's right. I give our customers what they want, and that
                is site statistics. They only complaint I'll get, is the lack
                of information about the used operating system. But that is
                something that won't be a part of webalizer.
                --
                Kees de Keizer NT Administrator T: +31-10-2448344
                #easynet Nederland PGP: 0x24E3770B F: +31-10-2448356
                http://www.easynet.nl/ kees.de.keizer@...
              • Bradford L. Barrett
                ... Because it s already there and it can be reported easily with very little additional overhead. But that is beside the point.. the point is that it is NOT
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I give our customers what they want: Site statistics. Our customers know
                  > that they are not 100% accurate if it concern page views and visits, due
                  > to the use of i.e. proxies. Webalizer is no longer a tool just for the
                  > administrators, but is more and more used for site statistics. Why would
                  > you else present referrers, user agents and countries? That information
                  > has nothing to do with analysis of the performance.

                  Because it's already there and it can be reported easily with very little
                  additional overhead.

                  But that is beside the point.. the point is that it is NOT ok to run
                  against live logs when using incremental mode, regardless of your
                  decision, for whatever reasons, to do so anyway.

                  --
                  Bradford L. Barrett brad@...
                  A free electron in a sea of neutrons DoD#1750 KD4NAW

                  The only thing Micro$oft has done for society, is make people
                  believe that computers are inherently unreliable.
                • Kees de Keizer
                  ... Maybe you should add that more clearly to the README file. The only about it now is something about preventing same timestamps . -- Kees de Keizer
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Bradford L. Barrett wrote:

                    > the point is that it is NOT ok to run against live logs when
                    > using incremental mode, regardless of your decision, for
                    > whatever reasons, to do so anyway.

                    Maybe you should add that more clearly to the README file. The
                    only about it now is something about "preventing same timestamps".
                    --
                    Kees de Keizer NT Administrator T: +31-10-2448344
                    #easynet Nederland PGP: 0x24E3770B F: +31-10-2448356
                    http://www.easynet.nl/ kees.de.keizer@...
                  • Josh Kuperman
                    I m very confused about this. From my reading of the documentation, it looks like running against live logs should not be a problem as long as you have a
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 7, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm very confused about this.

                      From my reading of the documentation, it looks like running against
                      live logs should not be a problem as long as you have a history file
                      keeping copies of the log records so they don't get counted twice. I
                      am started to use webalizer quite a bit for keeping track of both
                      web and proxy (squid) use. In all cases I'm running against live
                      logs. I really need to know what happened yesterday - ideally I'd be
                      processing hourly.

                      So far it is still very unclear to me why the live logs are a
                      problem? I suppose I could force the logs to rotate every day, but I
                      still don't get it. A file is a file, and at least on Unix systems I
                      don't see what the difference is between a live log and an archived
                      log.


                      On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 07:17:08AM +0100, Kees de Keizer wrote:
                      > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Bradford L. Barrett wrote:
                      >
                      > > the point is that it is NOT ok to run against live logs when
                      > > using incremental mode, regardless of your decision, for
                      > > whatever reasons, to do so anyway.
                      >
                      > Maybe you should add that more clearly to the README file. The
                      > only about it now is something about "preventing same timestamps".

                      --
                      Josh Kuperman
                      josh@...
                    • Bradford L. Barrett
                      ... You don t need incremental mode to run against logs hourly. ... One is being written to while processing, the other isn t. -- Bradford L. Barrett
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 7, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > I really need to know what happened yesterday - ideally I'd be
                        > processing hourly.

                        You don't need incremental mode to run against logs hourly.

                        > I don't see what the difference is between a live log and an archived
                        > log.

                        One is being written to while processing, the other isn't.

                        --
                        Bradford L. Barrett brad@...
                        A free electron in a sea of neutrons DoD#1750 KD4NAW

                        The only thing Micro$oft has done for society, is make people
                        believe that computers are inherently unreliable.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.