World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5013x4] | How many instances of Cheyenne are you running? |
The log will go to the first instance of Cheyenne started. | |
the trace.log appears in the chyenne directory if there is an error. | |
It doesn't appear in the logs/ directory | |
BrianH 29-May-2009 [5017] | You can set verbosity in the config file - check the comments in the file for how. |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5018x3] | no comments of verbosity in my config file.... no trace.log in my main cheyenne dir ' : -/ |
I've tried to write that line SEVEN times before altme finally didn't eat it up or drop connection. | |
>: - ( | |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5021x4] | It's really bad at present... |
Never seen it like this before ..... | |
I only get a trace.log when I get a RSP error. | |
What is your situation Max? | |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5025x2] | my cheyenne was crashing (no replies client close connection) with no log, no verbosity. |
but I finaly conceded victory to cheyenne and managed to setup args for my startup... | |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5027] | and exactly why can't you run it in verbose mode? |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5028] | but I find it strange that cheyenne doesn't have a trace log for all of its accesses/errors. |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5029] | there is an access.log |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5030x2] | I have no .log file of any kind being created in any of the cheyenne dirs. |
(or uniserve for hat matter) | |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5032] | including the log directory? |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5033x2] | this is the latest release. from the web site. |
yep... nothing in log | |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5035] | even after you access a web page?? |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5036x3] | I think that is the thing... it logs only after a succes... |
but it should log errors too. ;-( | |
I was studying the req object and it has a log? parameter in the out subobject. | |
Graham 29-May-2009 [5039] | so this is a heavily modified cheyenne or straight from doc's site? |
Maxim 29-May-2009 [5040x2] | download and double click.... but I'm working on mod-remark, so its not currently serving web pages... |
still at first, i did see the standard cheyenne pages and don't have any logs. | |
Maxim 30-May-2009 [5042] | yes! mod-remark has served its very first ever web page :-) |
Dockimbel 30-May-2009 [5043x3] | Re: JS warning in Firebug : that's intentional, it's not a bug, but it is bad practice. I'm putting that in my todo list. |
RETURN usage: your benchmark doesn't reflect real usage. RETURN cost is only significant if you didn't spent much time since you've entered in the function. In other terms, if RETURN is at the very beginning of the function, it might have a significant (means measurable, doesn't imply high) impact on performances, if much code has been processed before reaching it, I guess that you won't be able to measure any difference in performances. In Cheyenne's mods, I often use a testing expression at the beginning and jumping out if it doesn't match. Let's try to calculate how much gain I would get by removing this early RETURN : - 500 incoming req/s (extreme load conditions) - 10 mods - 12 callback / mod (each one having a early RETURN) - execution time for testing expression before each RETURN : 0 (will give us the maximum possible final gain) RETURN evaluation time : (according to your benchmark) >> (1.032 - 0.296) / 1E6 == 7.36E-7 # of RETURN evaluated under the testing conditions during 1 sec : >> 500 * 10 * 12 == 60000 Time spent in 60000 RETURN : >> 7.36E-7 * 60000 == 4.416E-2 ; = 44 ms, roughly 1 / 20 sec So, under extreme conditions, having a testing condition before RETURN taking no time, we can have a maximum gain of 5%. This translates in real usage in a gain of 0 to 5% depending on server's load and test branching conditions performances. Looking at the testing conditions in current mods, I guess we could squizze between 0 and 2% (under extreme load only). I'll try to hunt down those early RETURN cases in future versions. Btw, there's a drawback in not using RETURN, you end up with nesting IF/EITHER expressions, which gives you less readable code IMO. | |
Max: trace.log is only used in verbose mode or in RSP debug mode. Access logs are available in %log/ folder (either in Cheyenne's home folder or in folder defined with LOG-DIR config keyword). | |
BrianH 30-May-2009 [5046] | Also, setting conditions and using IF or EITHER expressions has overhead too. |
Robert 30-May-2009 [5047] | Are the paremters in request/content somehow checked after receving from the client if they contain malisous Rebol code or anything else? Or is everything just plain converted to string! and that's it? |
Maxim 30-May-2009 [5048x2] | verbose is at vvvvv (working) and pages are being served... yet I have no *.log files. |
thanks for the log-dir config... should put ALLthe configs in the httpd.conf file and gray them, like apache does it... with comments on what each config does... | |
Dockimbel 30-May-2009 [5050x3] | Max: good suggestion! |
Robert: it's string! by default, but you can force conversion to other types using this RSP function: http://cheyenne-server.org/docs/rsp-api.html#def-23 | |
Max: what Cheyenne 0.9.19 flavor are you using? Source or binary? Does your main process have correct rights for writing files in the folder Cheyenne is running from? | |
Maxim 31-May-2009 [5053x2] | cheyenne source... permissions... humm its on winxp.. didn't of checking... |
permissions seem ok. | |
Dockimbel 31-May-2009 [5055x2] | Argh, lost my post due to AltMe's hiccups... |
(short answer) Try using the -w option for REBOL like this : C:\Dev\SDK\tools\rebview.exe -ws cheyenne.r -vvvvv | |
Maxim 31-May-2009 [5057] | why the no-window flag... are you saying we can have log only if we startup cheyenne without console? |
Dockimbel 31-May-2009 [5058x2] | Currently yes. I didn't found any value of having logs both on screen and on disk at the same time. But if you can convince me that it has a value, I may support it in future. |
We're talking about debug logs here, not HTTP logs. | |
Maxim 31-May-2009 [5060x3] | doc... is the fact that I lost 6 hours trying to get information about cheyenne's errors on screen OR in log files any good reason? |
if you had log option and console option within the default config file, (commented out or not) then users choose what they want. | |
my client uses the console for real-time status checking... using remote desktop and just noticing if the client isn't serving stuff anymore... but the logs then allow you unravel what led to that problem. | |
older newer | first last |