On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jeremy Wadsack wrote:
> >
> > I was afraid you were going to say that, but I can't think of any
> > obvious reason why it needs to be that way - if I generate separate
> > logfiles per virtual server, there's no need to log %v, because I
> > already know which vhost each log line belongs to. I would think that
> > Analog should be assume the value of %v from the second argument?
>
> I don't see that there is a reason it shouldn't work that way either, but maybe
> Stephen can shed some light on that design decision. :)
>
I guess I'm not assuming that the prefix is necessarily a virtual hostname.
>
>
> > Is there any way I can get a VHOST report without modifying gigabytes of
> > logfiles?
>
> Patch Analog?
>
Look in the Directory Report.
--
Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences,
Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, 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]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
