Kevin, Yes. I suppose. I think that I was wondering why a condition resulting in *what I wanted it to do *was being treated as an error. There are times when I * want* the condition to exit and that is a good thing, not an error. I guess I just think of errors as something not working at all, blowing up, a bug. I don't see the natural result of a screening condition as an error. I'm probably looking more to the efficiency of all those message lines being written for results that are totally within expectations as being a waste of time (I/O) when it's doing what I want it to do. That's a lot of log writing for a lot of good results. That's all. But, I guess there isn't any way around that.
Kenn LBNL On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Kevin Falcone <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:08:45AM -0700, Kenneth Crocker wrote: > > Kevin, > > > > OK. I see that. I was just wondering if there was a way to reduce the > number of error > > messages. I mean, I only need to see one or two error messages and I > can figure out that it > > needs work or whatever. But any more than that just seems redundant. > My thinking that less > > messages would be less I/O and therefore faster response. Just a > thought. > > From the log, you're getting one message every time your Scrip is > used. That seems totally reasonable to me. > > -kevin > > > RT Training in Washington DC, USA on Oct 25 & 26 2010 > Last one this year -- Learn how to get the most out of RT! >
RT Training in Washington DC, USA on Oct 25 & 26 2010 Last one this year -- Learn how to get the most out of RT!
