Am Montag, den 16.09.2013, 10:02 -0400 schrieb Christopher Schultz: > Jim, > > On 9/16/13 3:42 AM, Jim Barber wrote: > > I'm hoping someone on this list can help me since I've been reading > > docs, mailing lists, FAQs, and so on for hours now, and I'm not > > having much luck finding an answer to my question. > > > > I am using Tomcat version 7.0.42 as packaged in Debian Linux. In > > front of my Tomcat servers, I am using haproxy for load balancing. > > The haproxy load balancers are using the HTTP OPTIONS request > > method to check if the Tomcat servers are alive and healthy. > > > > This results in log entries like the following in the Tomcat > > accesslog file: > > > > 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:12:49 +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" > > 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:12:51 +1000] "OPTIONS / > > HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:12:53 +1000] > > "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:12:55 > > +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - > > [16/Sep/2013:17:12:57 +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 > > - - [16/Sep/2013:17:12:59 +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - > > 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:13:01 +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" > > 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:13:03 +1000] "OPTIONS / > > HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:13:05 +1000] > > "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - [16/Sep/2013:17:13:07 > > +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 - - > > [16/Sep/2013:17:13:09 +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - 10.122.32.4 > > - - [16/Sep/2013:17:13:11 +1000] "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.0" 200 - > > > > At the moment I'm getting one of these every 2seconds, but I > > haven't enabled the second load balancer for HA purposes yet. When > > I do that, I'll be getting twice as many hits of this type. > > > > This is going to result in rather large log files full of noise > > that I'm not interested in. > > Playing the devil's advocate here a bit... > > Why wouldn't you be interested in getting these logs? They are > requests being handled by your web server. They require (a small > amount of) time and resources to process, and indicate that your lb is > still reaching-out to determine the status of the app server. > > My recommendation would be to leave those logs in there (they > accurately describe a real request) and filter them out if you want to > do some kind of analytics against your log files and consider those > OPTIONS requests to be noise. I have had one case where I wanted to get rid of those requests too, so I can understand the OP. But I have to admint I had a scary feeling about it.
> > > <Valve className="org.apache.catalina.valves.AccessLogValve" > > directory="logs" prefix="localhost_access_log." suffix=".txt" > > pattern="%h %l %u %t "%r" %s %b" /> > > > > Specifically adding the condition="<VALUE>" attribute, but I have > > no idea what to set <VALUE> to. > > It's not that simple: if you want to use "condition", then you have a > write a Valve (can't be a Filter, since it must run *before* the > AccessLogValve) that tests the request and sets a request attribute > that will then trigger this condition. That is not true, you can use a filter, since the logging will happen *after* the request and can and will check the request attribute then. > > Honestly, it's not worth it IMO. > > Just use logrotate + gzip and don't worry about disk space. > > If you filter-out those requests, there will come a time when you'll > look back and say "wow, I wish we had all those lb requests in the log > so we could tell what's happening". As I admitted above that may very well be the case :) Felix > > -chris > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
