<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apache 2 follies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2006/04/08/apache-2-follies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2006/04/08/apache-2-follies/</link>
	<description>John Joseph Bachir's blog</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2006/04/08/apache-2-follies/#comment-24822</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:29:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/276#comment-24822</guid>
		<description>I think Apache behaves this way because it's usually started by an init script on a server.  In that context it's most convenient for Apache to communicate problems by logging them (since logs are probably being monitored for error messages, while the console isn't) and return a nonzero exit code (which the script can detect and print a standard error message).  Unfortunately you can't perceive either of those things when you run apache directly.

Personally I think that the inability to write to error_log is a justified reason to halt, but when other logs are not writeable the process should start, post an error message to error_log (and possibly to stderr too), and continue operating.  In particular, if /var fills up over the weekend, I'd rather have my web server continue operating but stop logging accesses, than stop doing anything at all.

On the other hand, a lot of ancillary things (like traffic monitoring) rely on Apache's access logs, so maybe considering them to be optional just opens the door to hard-to-diagnose bugs in those programs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Apache behaves this way because it&#8217;s usually started by an init script on a server.  In that context it&#8217;s most convenient for Apache to communicate problems by logging them (since logs are probably being monitored for error messages, while the console isn&#8217;t) and return a nonzero exit code (which the script can detect and print a standard error message).  Unfortunately you can&#8217;t perceive either of those things when you run apache directly.</p>
<p>Personally I think that the inability to write to error_log is a justified reason to halt, but when other logs are not writeable the process should start, post an error message to error_log (and possibly to stderr too), and continue operating.  In particular, if /var fills up over the weekend, I&#8217;d rather have my web server continue operating but stop logging accesses, than stop doing anything at all.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a lot of ancillary things (like traffic monitoring) rely on Apache&#8217;s access logs, so maybe considering them to be optional just opens the door to hard-to-diagnose bugs in those programs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<a href="http://evterpa.co.uk/"><small>All of mp3</small></a>