Hi Michael,

> Yeah, it worked now. Was a special environment: I tested it with a vm
> and only log-files from today. Running split_logs manually created a
> folder for 2022/12/27 (yesterday, normally wanted), but in this folder
> were only records for today (which would be filtered, I think).

Yes, this is intentional. When logrotate runs we create a copy of the log and work through it. The results go in a folder with yesterdays date, as "todays" data is still in the live log.

If logrotate doesn't run at midnight we might end up with some data from yesterday and today in it, but each dated folder after a while will have consistently data that was aggregated until the logrotate kicked in. So I don't consider this an issue.

I checked the logs today after automatic logrotate. The files are created (and I don't know why), but it's strange. I have to less traffic on the test-site to debug it (only manual 5 hits), but
web.log is a null byte file (also on other older installations)
there's a valid json file in /home/sites/{sitename}/var/logs/2022/12/28
in GUI I can only choose 2022/12/29, which shows no results (correct, no json). 2022/12/28 is not clickable.

Should web.log have data or would it removed after statistic is processed? I have to debug the process, when I migrated a site with more traffic....


I checked it again on a clean vm. The rpm package is installed now, but the images would not be show, because /var/lib/monitorix/www/imgs has no write access. Which process creates the images? monitorix runs as root, the admserv user has no write access. Maybe it's an error on my side, but it occurs on two test vms.

/var/lib/monitorix/www/imgs should be owned by admserv:admserv and should have 0755 permissions. Yours doesn't? The "monitorix" RPM should set it in the POST install section.

In installed a fresh vm. And no, the permissions are wrong:

[root@blueonyx9 ~]# ls -lsa /var/lib/monitorix/www/imgs
insgesamt 8
4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 27. Dez 17:52 .
4 drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 29. Dez 10:34 ..

IMHO it was correct before the "perl-Config-General" update, but I'm not sure.

Regards,
Juerg
_______________________________________________
Blueonyx mailing list
Blueonyx@mail.blueonyx.it
http://mail.blueonyx.it/mailman/listinfo/blueonyx

Reply via email to