On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, James Green wrote:
>
> Indeed, however I remember reading a HOWTO on the subject linked from
> analog.cx, and I believe it said to load the day's access.log, then the old
> cache files, then output both a new cache file and the html report. If that
> is the case then surely t
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, James Green wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'll paste what I just found firstly:
> >
> > [ ] cache-2002-09-0707-Sep-2002 03:45 11.9M
> > [ ] cache-2002-09-0808-Sep-2002 03:45 20.5M
> > [ ] cache-2002-09-0909-Sep-2002 03:45 27.6M
> > [ ] cac
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, James Green wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'll paste what I just found firstly:
>
> [ ] cache-2002-09-0707-Sep-2002 03:45 11.9M
> [ ] cache-2002-09-0808-Sep-2002 03:45 20.5M
> [ ] cache-2002-09-0909-Sep-2002 03:45 27.6M
> [ ] cache-2002-09-10
Hi all,
I'll paste what I just found firstly:
[ ] cache-2002-09-0707-Sep-2002 03:45 11.9M
[ ] cache-2002-09-0808-Sep-2002 03:45 20.5M
[ ] cache-2002-09-0909-Sep-2002 03:45 27.6M
[ ] cache-2002-09-1010-Sep-2002 03:45 33.9M
[ ] cache-2002-09-11
On 22 Nov 1999, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> I'm experimenting with cache files and it seems like I'm getting huge cache
> files. 61M in fact. That's a lot smaller than the log files, but I had been
> expecting much smaller files.
>
They have to store every filename and every hostname that's ever vis
I'm experimenting with cache files and it seems like I'm getting huge cache
files. 61M in fact. That's a lot smaller than the log files, but I had been
expecting much smaller files.
Are there particular parameters I should be setting in analog.cfg to limit the
amount of data the cache files need
