In this case, I switched over to apache 2.4 on RHEL6 because a couple
modules on some of our websites no longer supported the base php 5.3.  When
I asked why, I was given "Why are you still using RHEL6?" as the reason
they would not be supporting my config.  Since your question came up I
thought I would throw in my own experience, but I was not using that to
question your own RHEL6 usage.

For the record, this is our /etc/logrotate.d/httpd24-httpd file:
/admin/var/log/httpd24/*log {
    missingok
    ifempty
    create
    daily
    rotate 28
    start 1
    sharedscripts
    nocompress
    postrotate
        /sbin/service httpd24-httpd reload > /dev/null 2>/dev/null || true
    endscript
}

As you see, similarly configured and we get the results I mentioned.

jim

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:13 PM Srikanth Pippari
<spipp...@vitechinc.com.invalid> wrote:

> "why are you still using RHEL6?" à It’s an client requirement to continue
> with RHEL 6.
>
>
>
> I don’t see such scenario you stated below for the rotation. Do we have
> any other configuration files to update in RHEL 6 server to Apache log
> rotation?
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Srikanth Pippari  | V3OPS team.
>
> Email ID : spipp...@vitechinc.com
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Weill <moon...@icsi.berkeley.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:55 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [users@httpd] Urgent: Apache log is not rotating
> after the upgrade
>
>
>
> We have a similar setup and the log actually **does** rotate, but instead
> of archiving the active log to the next numbered log and renumbering them
> down the line, it actually instead moves the active log to the next archive
> number and moves the rest down the line.  So for example, instead of
> today's log being http24_access_log, it's actually http24_access_log.5 and
> tomorrow the active log will be http24_access_log.6 until seven days have
> passed, in which case it will revert back to the expected
> http24_access_log, and repeat this process over the next seven days.  I
> have not found a reason for this so far, but I am interested in figuring
> out whether there is an answer to it other than "why are you still using
> RHEL6?"
>
>
>
> jim
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:09 AM Srikanth Pippari <
> spipp...@vitechinc.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> We have upgraded Apache 2.2 version to Apache 2.4.34 version on *Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux Server release 6.10 (Santiago)* server . After the
> upgrade the log is not rotating  and we also check the log rotation file
> config looks good .
>
>
>
> Can some one help me to figure out the issue..
>
>
>
> Below is the config details of log rotation policy. Location of the file :
> */etc/logrotate.d/httpd24-httpd*
>
>
>
> */var/log/httpd24/*log {*
>
> *    daily*
>
> *    compress*
>
> *    missingok*
>
> *    notifempty*
>
> *    sharedscripts*
>
> *    delaycompress*
>
> *    rotate 90*
>
> *    postrotate*
>
> *      /sbin/service httpd24-httpd reload > /dev/null 2>/dev/null || true*
>
> *           endscript*
>
> *}*
>
>
>
>
>
> The config locations are different after the upgrade
>
>
>
> Configuration File location :
> */opt/rh/httpd24/root/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf*
>
> Command to stop/start/restart : *service httpd24-httpd start/stop/restart*
>
>
>
> *Thanks in Advance !!*
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Srikanth Pippari  | V3OPS team.
>
> Email ID : spipp...@vitechinc.com
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it may contain
> confidential and proprietary information and are intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the
> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank
> you for your cooperation.
>
>

Reply via email to