On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Kevin Hemenway wrote:
>
> Ok. So, this should never come into effect if I just set up a weekly log
> report that adds a new week to all the old cache files and reports? I have
> no plans on changing the reporting frequency.
>
> How would this come into effect though? When would the historical cache file
> (HCF) suck into that seven days? I can see that happening if the machine's
> date is set wrong, and the log file entries are subsequently dated wrong. I
> can see that happening if someone wanted to do the last ten days (from/to),
> but that's explained in the docs.
>
> Is there any time where an innocent nonesuch can cause the HCF to overlap?
> I'm just overly paranoid because the statement seemed so strong in the docs.
>
I really don't think it's a big issue. It's only the number of failed and
redirected requests in the last 7 days which goes wrong, not the successful
requests.
> Definitely makes sense. Is there any significant speed decrease when opening
> up VIRTDOMAINS x WEEKS x YEARS cache files per week as opposed to
> VIRTDOMAINS x YEARS or VIRTDOMAINS?
Probably not much.
> I can see Analog doing 1994 - 2000 on
> your machine, which is nice - how long does that take?
18 minutes on a 266 chip, but I don't use cache files. It would be MUCH
quicker if I did.
> Do you have any
> system load readouts?
At a guess, something like this:
1 | ##################
| # #
| # #
| # #
| # #
0 ########----------------#######
0:02am 0:20am
:)
--
Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1SB, England
"8th March 2000. National No Smoking Day. Ash Wednesday." (On a calendar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
