On 01/23/2013 10:39 pm, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 24/01/2013 4:13 a.m., dweimer wrote:
On 2013-01-23 08:40, dweimer wrote:
On 2013-01-22 23:30, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 23/01/2013 5:34 a.m., dweimer wrote:
I just upgraded my reverse proxy server last night from 3.1.20 to
3.2.6, all is working well except one of my log rules, and I can't
figure out why.
Please run "squid -k parse" and resolve the WARNING or ERROR which
are listed.
There are two possible reasons...
I have a several sites behind the server, with dstdomain access
rules setup.
acl website1 dstdomain www.website1.com
acl website2 dstdomain www.website2.com
acl website2 dstdomain www.website3.com
Possible reason #1 (assuming thi is an accurate copy-n-paste from
yoru config file)..... you have no website3 ACL definition?
That was a typo in the email, correct ACL is in the configuration,
squid -k parse outputs no warnings or errors.
...
Followed by the access rules
http_access allow website1
http_access allow website2
http_access allow website3
...
http_access deny all
Some are using rewrites
url_rewrite_program /usr/local/etc/squid/url_rewrite.py
url_rewrite_children 20
url_rewrite_access allow website1
url_rewrite_access allow website3
...
url_rewrite_access deny all
Then my access logs
# First I grab everything in one
access_log daemon:/var/log/squid/access.log squid all
access_log daemon:/var/log/squid/website1.log combined website1
access_log daemon:/var/log/squid/website2.log combined website2
access_log daemon:/var/log/squid/website3.log combined website3
...
everything works, write down to one of the access logs, the data
shows up in the access.log file, the data shows up in the
individual logs for all the others, except that one. If we use
website3 from the above example like my actual file the access rule
works on the url_rewrite_access allow line, but for some reason is
failing on the log line. squid -k parse doesn't show any errors,
and shows a Processing: access_log
daemon:/var/log/squid/website3.log combined website3 line in the
output.
The log in question was originally at the end of my access_log list
section, so I changed the order around to see if for some reason it
was only the last one not working, no change still only that one
not working, And the new last one in the list still works as
expected.
I know the ACL is working as it works correctly on the rewrite rule
and the http access just above the log rules, anyone have any ideas
on how I can figure out why the log entry isn't working?
Changed lines back to daemon, changed acl on logs to the rewrite side
used on the cache_peer_access lines later in the configuration. Works
now, and logs even show up with the pre-rewrite rule host
information...
That does make me wonder why some lines were getting logged but not
all, the sites I thought were working do have higher usage, maybe I
was still missing a lot from them, and just not knowing it. I guess I
will see if my webalizer reports show a huge gain in hit count over
the old records from the the 3.1.20 installation, of if this behavior
is only evident in the 3.2 branch.
I think you will find that the lines being logged previously were on
the requests which were either not rewritten at all or were re-written
from another requests URL which was being logged.
Each of the ACL-driven directive labels in squid.conf is effectively
an event trigger script - deciding whether or not to perform some
action. This only makes sense testing when that action choice is
requried. Squid processing pathway checks http_access first, ... then
some others, ... then url_rewriting, ... then the destination
selection (cache_peer and others), ... then when the transaction is
fully completed access_log output decision are done.
Amos
Last night I applied the FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p6 Update and Upgraded the
ports which included Squid 3.4.12, I enabled the LAX HTTP option in the
ports configuration with adds the --enable-http-violations compile
option. With the intention to enable broken_posts option in the
configuration. I will hopefully be able to apply any necessary changes
to the production system after I test them now.
When doing this update I did have a thought the system is running in a
FreeBSD jail and not on the base system is there a chance this issue is
caused by running within a jail? curious if anyone has ran into specific
issues running Squid in a FreeBSD jail before?
--
Thanks,
Dean E. Weimer
http://www.dweimer.net/
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
