On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:53 PM Hardik <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dridi, > > I am reading few tags for Billing purpose. I have added VMOD for this.In vmod > currently I was passing "-g session" option to varnish callback function. But > I found out that not getting ReqAcct tag. Also I am missing lots of logs > itself. > > After with discussion with you guys it seems problem is due to "-g session" > option. So I removed that and tested again and looks better then before. > Reduced frequency of missing ReqAcct and Log loss decreased a lot. > > Now, my doubt, Is it better not to use any option and keep default setting, > or to use -c option ? So I can minimize log loss as many as I can. > > Here is small from vmod which is reading shared memory (it was lot easier in > varnish 3 because I was able to call dispatch function directly), > vut = VUT_Init(argv[0], 1, argv, &s); > vut->dispatch_f = VarnishLog::handler; > vut->dispatch_priv = this; > vut->g_arg = 3; <---- I commented out this now ( -g session ) > vut->sighup = 1; > vut->sighup_f = VarnishLog::sighup; > VUT_Setup(vut); > VUT_Main(vut); > VUT_Fini(&vut);
So you wrote your own log utility in C++? Wow! > I can not change above whole setup but can modify few things in that. > > Now, If you can answer previous questions will be really helpful. > Particularly how -g session option creating problem ? Sorry but this is not what I was looking for. [1] Can you give me a list of log records you need to collect? And possibly how you are trying to group them if they come from different transactions? There's a lot we can do without building a new utility. Dridi [1] http://xyproblem.info/ _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
