Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-05 Thread Len Budney
"David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you editor can't read in the results of a program? I can think offhand of a couple of ways of doing it, but all of them are grossly inefficient and take lots of keystrokes. There may well be an

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-05 Thread Len Budney
Kins Orekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And can't you look at them by passing them through tai64nlocal each time? Can you spell "shell script wrapper"? :) I *asked* the list about *some program* which can do reverse time translation for my *already existing logs* -

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-05 Thread Kins Orekhov
Because we look at them too often :) And can't you look at them by passing them through tai64nlocal each time? Can you spell "shell script wrapper"? :) I *asked* the list about *some program* which can do reverse time translation for my *already existing logs* - from Local to TAI. I *know*

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Dave Sill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, I'm really confused. Here's the path that logs go thru on my machine: qmail - accustamp - tailocal If I'm disabling tailocal, then my logs ARE suitable for qmailanalog, so why do I need to run my logs thru tai64nfrac if everything works fine in this case?

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Kins Orekhov
Why not just store the logs in there accustamp or multilog form and convert them to localtime ONLY when you need to look at them. Because we look at them too often :) -- Kins Orekhov Outlook Technologies, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 773-775-2099, ext. 226 http://swoop.outlook.net

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Dave Sill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not just store the logs in there accustamp or multilog form and convert them to localtime ONLY when you need to look at them. Because we look at them too often :) So what? Do you have a quota on the number of times tailocal can be run? -Dave

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 04 May 2000: So what? Do you have a quota on the number of times tailocal can be run? I'm not the person asking the question, but I'm guessing that the annoyance factor of having to do tailocal logfile | less instead of less logfile is quite

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Dave Sill
Mikko Hänninen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if there is some automagical solution that could be used with lessopen.sh, or something else? It's of course possible to create an alias or whatever, but that also has an annoyance factor greater than the simplest form, since you'd need to use a

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Peter Samuel
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: Why not just store the logs in there accustamp or multilog form and convert them to localtime ONLY when you need to look at them. Because we look at them too often :) And can't you look at them by passing them through tai64nlocal each time? Can

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread David Dyer-Bennet
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 5 May 2000 at 11:56:47 +1000 On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: Why not just store the logs in there accustamp or multilog form and convert them to localtime ONLY when you need to look at them. Because we look at them too

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Peter Samuel
On Thu, 4 May 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 5 May 2000 at 11:56:47 +1000 On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: Why not just store the logs in there accustamp or multilog form and convert them to localtime ONLY when you need to

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread David Dyer-Bennet
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 5 May 2000 at 13:52:17 +1000 On Thu, 4 May 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 5 May 2000 at 11:56:47 +1000 On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: Why not just store the logs in there

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-04 Thread Juan E Suris
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 5 May 2000 at 13:52:17 +1000 On Thu, 4 May 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 5 May 2000 at 11:56:47 +1000 On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: Why not just store the logs in

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Peter Samuel
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: Hello people! We've been running qmail more then 6 months and have a lot of logs. Now I want them analyze with qmailanalog, but matchup doesn't like timestamps in logs because we do accustamp on logs and the tailocal it. So, what we have is:

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Frank D. Cringle
"Peter Samuel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: ... So, what we have is: 1999-11-24 17:43:07.542160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 but matchup needs: 957284032.988038 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 ... I have a patch for deamontools-0.70

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Kins Orekhov
1999-11-24 17:43:07.542160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 but matchup needs: 957284032.988038 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Russ Allebury has a similar patch. Yes, I have tried that and it didn't work for me. Comments for tai64nfrac says: Expects the input stream to be a

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Kins Orekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, I have tried that and it didn't work for me. Comments for tai64nfrac says: Expects the input stream to be a sequence of lines beginning with @ (1), a timestamp in external TAI64N format, and a space. Replaces the @ and the timestamp with

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Kins Orekhov
You've already run the logs through tai64nlocal. That converts the TAI64 timestamp into human readable form. Don't do that. Leave the multilog output alone and then run it through tai64nfrac (or tai64nunix) and it will generate timestamps suitable for qmailanalog. Now, I'm really confused.

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Kins Orekhov
I've wrote a small awk-script to accomplish this, but it doesn't work with big files on my machine (more then 440-445 lines), and I can't figure out why (if someone has suggestions/recommendations, please, let me know): This script does the trick for me. Again, originally I was for such

Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-03 Thread Peter Samuel
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote: You've already run the logs through tai64nlocal. That converts the TAI64 timestamp into human readable form. Don't do that. Leave the multilog output alone and then run it through tai64nfrac (or tai64nunix) and it will generate timestamps suitable

accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-02 Thread Kins Orekhov
Hello people! We've been running qmail more then 6 months and have a lot of logs. Now I want them analyze with qmailanalog, but matchup doesn't like timestamps in logs because we do accustamp on logs and the tailocal it. So, what we have is: 1999-11-24 17:43:07.542160 status: local 0/10

RE: accustamp|tailocal|matchup

2000-05-02 Thread Tim Hunter
] Subject: Re: accustamp|tailocal|matchup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what we have is: 1999-11-24 17:43:07.542160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 but matchup needs: 957284032.988038 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Is it correct? Yes. So, the question is how would one use qmailanalog