Mailing List Archive

If the patch works as advertised, I consider this a good thing - and not
a functional enhancement (which would delay it until post-1.0)

Brian

On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> ack sent
>
> Forwarded message:
> > From sabat@enterprise.Dts.Harris.COM Fri Oct 6 11:32:43 1995
> > Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 11:30:42 -0700
> > From: sabat@enterprise.Dts.Harris.COM (Steve Abatangle)
> > Message-Id: <9510061830.AA06186@velveeta.harris.com>
> > To: apache-bugs@mail.apache.org
> > Subject: Apache Patch: timeout vs abort
> > Content-Length: 1401
> >
> > Apache .8.14 patch: timeout/abort
> >
> >
> > This is a patch that lets http_main.c differentiate between client
> > timeouts and client aborts. I whipped it up because
> >
> > a] it's useful information -- if you're getting a lot of timeouts,
> > you may have network problems that need fixing. A large number
> > of aborts might tell you your pages are too full of huge GIFs.
> > But if you can't tell the difference between a timeout and an
> > abort, you aren't able to spot these kinds of problems.
> >
> > b] NCSA has something similar in 1.4+.
> >
> >
> > Steve Abatangle
> > sabat@dts.harris.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --- http_main.c 1995/10/6 11:16:45
> 230c230
> < char errstr[MAX_STRING_LEN];
> ---
> > char errstr[MAX_STRING_LEN],action[MAX_STRING_LEN];
> 244,248c244,259
> <
> < sprintf(errstr,"%s timed out for %s",
> < timeout_name ? timeout_name : "request",
> < current_conn->remote_name);
> <
> ---
> >
> > if (sig==SIGALRM) { /* SIGALRM is a timeout */
> > strcpy (action, "timed out");
> > }
> > else if (sig==SIGPIPE) { /* SIGPIPE is probably an abort */
> > strcpy (action, "aborted");
> > }
> > else { /* extra wackiness just in case */
> > strcpy (action, "stopped unidentifiably");
> > }
> >
> > sprintf(errstr,"%s %s for %s",
> > timeout_name ? timeout_name : "request",
> > action,
> > current_conn->remote_name);
> >
>
>
>
>

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

> If the patch works as advertised, I consider this a good thing - and not
> a functional enhancement (which would delay it until post-1.0)

It was added before, but got lossed during the switch to 0.8

If it was uploaded as a patch, I'd vote for it as a bug-fix. It fixes
a bug in logging.

rob