The following reply was made to PR general/1555; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Lars Eilebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: (Apache GNATS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:  Subject: Re: general/1555: excessive  error log messages ... "send body 
lost connection to: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx : Broken pipe"
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:49:32 +0100 (CET)

 -----Forwarded message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-----
 
 From: Raymond Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
 >The messages do not indicate an error or a problem unless
 >you see _very_ much of those messages in your error log
 >(As far as I remember version 1.0 of Apache never
 > reported such 'errors').
 
 How much would be _very_ much?
 
 I checked a tape and it is in none of our 1.0 logs.
 
 >The messages are caused by clients breaking the
 >connection, by buggy clients (you will see those
 >messages when a client with broken PDF support tries
 >do download PDF files from your site, i.e. byte-serving)
 >and by clients accessing your site via an extremely
 >slow connection.
 
 If this is not an error it should not log an error.  This shoud be a
 configurable log message. Also the message probly could be changed to
 better indicate the source of the problem/message.  Our customers didn't
 appreciate it at first.
 
 Is it possible to turn logging of this particular message OFF?  This is
 akin to the logging of lame server delegation messages in named; at least
 to me it is since i cant do anything about it.
 
 >But how many of those messages do you see and how many hits
 >get your server? 
 
 Since you didn't specify an interval i hope this will do:
 two one hour samples 
 
    113163  successfull hits 
    3096   total errs
    1288   Broken pipe errors 41.6% of all errs, 1.1% of all hits
  
    97773  successfull hits 
    2627   total errs
    1077   Broken pipe errors 41.0% of all errs, 1.1% of all hits
 
 So i guest this "send body lost connection: site: broken pipe message is
 not significant.  
 
 On a similiar note some time ago i was taken aback by the large number of
 collisions on our ethernet port some time ago but it turns out that it was
 less than .01% of the total ethernet traffic.  Moral of the story is:
 numbers dont always indicate the maginitude of the situation or problem.
 
 --------------End of forwarded message-------------------------
 

Reply via email to