Re: logresolve
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 07:53:40AM -0400, Dan MacNeil wrote:
> > [useful script and config file snipped]
>
> Thanks, the HERE document / print to pipe is pretty nifty.
yep. i did it that way so i could test what the script *would* do before
i let it do it. when testing, it just creates a shell script in a text
file - which can be viewed and/or run by hand. when it's finished, just
change it to write to a pipe to bash instead of a text file and it runs
the shell commands directly. it's a useful technique so i have re-used
it in several other scripts.
i tend to write scripts as filters for the same reason - that way i
can test it with any sample input and inspect the output *without*
clobbering any real/useful file. i don't run a script on real data until
i'm certain that it's working correctly.
> I notice from the comments in the script that you switched from analog
> to webalizer.
>
> What was your reasoning?
truth is, i can't remember. no particular reason. i guess i just liked
the output of webalizer better.
aside from the one useful function of telling you about the load pattern
your server is under, web stats are just meaningless pretty graphs for
management & marketing types, and webalizer does better pretty graphs
than analog.
actually, webalizer's summary of search terms leading to your site is
also useful. i take the "visits" stats with a truckful of salt.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: