>From the responses I got I realize the time is large but that is not the point.
The point is the format of the field.
I just wondered if it did or did not recognize ##E# as a format.   From what I
hear the answer is no.  Of course if I got a
value of 1.112E3 that would NOT be a HUGE value (not good) but it is valid yet
analog would not like it so I need to
change my LOGFORMAT from what I see.

Michael


                                                                
 Internet Mail Message                                          
 Received from host:      [64.209.164.11]                       
 [64.209.164.11]                                                
                                                                


From: Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/03/2002 03:53 PM GMT
                                                                                      
                  Stephen Turner           To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]          
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>           Cc:    (bcc: Mike Jenkins-MW/PGI)          
                                   Subject:      Re: [analog-help] Possible %t bug    
                                                                                      
             04/03/2002 11:53 AM                                                      
               Please respond to                                                      
     [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                                      
                                                                                      





On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have found a line in a http log file as such:
>
> 155.125.126.156:7101 155.125.14.236  2002-03-18  17:04:55    POST
> /Edit/HomeCSS.jsp   -   400 1.01648909E9  994
>
>
> Notice the 9th field is the time-taken field.   Most of the time I have no
> problem with this field but in this case notice the
> #.####E9 format.    Using the first LOGFORMAT line with just %t produces this
> data line as an error.  Yet if I include the
> second LOGFORMAT line with it as %tE%j  (throw away the E and the value with
it)
> it works.   Is this a bug?   Shouldn't
> a numeric field recognize exponential data?
>

If your web server is taking 32 years to serve a page, then you've got more
to worry about than analog not processing the line...

Seriously, it seems to me that analog is correct to regard this line as
corrupt because the figure is obviously wrong.

--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01

+------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
|  mailing list, go to
|    http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html
|
|  List archives are available at
|    http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
|    http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/
|    http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7
+------------------------------------------------------------------------


+------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
|  mailing list, go to
|    http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html
|
|  List archives are available at
|    http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
|    http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/
|    http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7
+------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to