Remind me again why a production setup is logging every header of every
request? Also, if you are logging every header, then the amount of data
added by a single extra header would be insignificant compared to the rest
of the request.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Asher Feldman <afeld...@wikimedia.org>wrote:
> That's not at all true in the real world. Look at the actual requests for
> google analytics on a high percentage of sites, etc.
>
> Setting new request headers for mobile that map to new inflexible fields in
> the log stream that must be set on all non mobile requests ("\t-\t-")
> equals gigabytes of unnecessarily log data every day (that we want
> to save 100% of) for no good reason. Wanting to keep query params "pure"
> isn't a good reason.
>
> On Sunday, February 3, 2013, Tyler Romeo wrote:
>
> > Considering that the query component of a URI is meant to identify the
> > resource whereas HTTP headers are meant to tell the server additional
> > information about the request, I think a header approach is much more
> > appropriate than a no-op query parameter.
> >
> > If the X- is removed, I'd have no problem with the addition of these
> > headers, but what is the advantage of having two over one. Wouldn't a
> > header like:
> > MobileFrontend: 1/2 a/b/s
> > work just as fine?
> >
> > *--*
> > *Tyler Romeo*
> > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
> > Major in Computer Science
> > www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Asher Feldman <afeld...@wikimedia.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding varnish cacheability of mobile API requests with a logging
> > query
> > > param - it would probably be worth making frontend varnishes strip out
> > all
> > > occurrences of that query param and its value from their backend
> requests
> > > so they're all the same to the caching instances. A generic param name
> > that
> > > can take any value would allow for adding as many extra log values as
> > > needed, limited only by the uri log field length.
> > >
> > > &l=mft2&l=mfstable etc.
> > >
> > > So still an edge cache change but the result is more flexible
> > > while avoiding changing the fixed field length log format across
> > unrelated
> > > systems like text squids or image caches.
> > >
> > > On Sunday, February 3, 2013, Asher Feldman wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want to differentiate categories of API requests in logs, add
> > > > descriptive noop query params to the requests. I.e &mfmode=2. Doing
> > this
> > > in
> > > > request headers and altering edge config is unnecessary and a bad
> > design
> > > > pattern. On the analytics side, if parsing query params seems
> > challenging
> > > > vs. having a fixed field to parse, deal.
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2013, David Schoonover wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Huh! News to me as well. I definitely agree with that decision.
> > Thanks,
> > > >> Ori!
> > > >>
> > > >> I've already written the Varnish code for setting X-MF-Mode so it
> can
> > be
> > > >> captured by varnishncsa. Is there agreement to switch to
> Mobile-Mode,
> > or
> > > >> at
> > > >> least, MF-Mode?
> > > >>
> > > >> Looking especially to hear from Arthur and Matt.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> David Schoonover
> > > >> d...@wikimedia.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Diederik van Liere
> > > >> <dvanli...@wikimedia.org>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this
> > > >> > D
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Platonides wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> I don't like it's cryptic nature.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Someone looking at the headers sent to his browser would be
> very
> > > >> > >> confused about what's the point of «X-MF-Mode: b».
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Instead something like this would be much more descriptive:
> > > >> > >> X-Mobile-Mode: stable
> > > >> > >> X-Mobile-Request: secondary
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> But that also means sending more bytes through the wire :S
> > > >> > > Well, you can (and should) drop the 'X-' :-)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648: Deprecating the "X-"
> > Prefix
> > > >> and
> > > >> > Similar Constructs in Application Protocols
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > Ori Livneh
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > >> > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > >> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
