[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-4041?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15229182#comment-15229182
]
Alan M. Carroll commented on TS-4041:
-------------------------------------
Please put a proposal on the mailing list, [~shinrich].
> Refine squid codes to distinguish connection shutdown causes
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TS-4041
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-4041
> Project: Traffic Server
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Logging
> Reporter: Susan Hinrichs
> Assignee: Susan Hinrichs
> Fix For: 7.0.0
>
>
> SQUID_LOG_ERR_CLIENT_ABORT is used in multiple scenarios. The ambiguity
> between these scenarios has caused us to take some false turns in debugging
> failures. Based on code inspection, CLIENT_ABORT will show up in the
> following cases.
> * The client sends an EOS unexpectedy. CLIENT_ABORT seems completely
> appropriate.
> * The client VC times out (either inactive or active timeout). CLIENT_ABORT
> doesn't seem right here. Perhaps SQUID_LOG_ERR_READ_TIMEOUT would be better.
> That seems to be currently used for server side timeouts. Might be nice to
> have a differentiation on which side timed out.
> * The client VC has a read failure. This would include the SSL_read failure
> case. Could use SQUID_LOG_ERR_READ_ERROR. Currently only used if the server
> side sends EOS before end of expected data. Again differentiating server side
> and client side error would be beneficial.
> How fixed are the squid error codes? Could we add more codes? If so, we
> could distinguish between the client-side failures and server-side failures
> by adding the following codes.
> * Use CLIENT_ABORT only for for client sending EOS too early.
> * Use CLIENT_READ_TIMEOUT for inactive/active timeouts on client side.
> * Use CLIENT_READ_ERROR for read failures on client side.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
