Author | Topic: Help needed Apache error.log | |
---|---|---|
Ben Konemann | Help needed Apache error.log on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:14:16 +0100 Very often we have the following error meaages in the Apache error.log: [Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer: http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/ or [Mon Nov 22 07:26:58 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer: http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/cgi-bin/waa1gate.exe In most cases, with this kind of error, a error message appears after the xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] and before , referer: info., like this: [Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] <ERRORMESSAGE> , referer: http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/ In the Waa1 log notting special. No complaints from the customers/users!! Any hints???? Environment: Windows XP sp 3 APACHE 2.0.59 WAA 1.90.331 | |
Thomas Braun | Re: Help needed Apache error.log on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:03:31 +0100 Ben Konemann wrote: > Very often we have the following error meaages in the Apache error.log: > > [Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer: > http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/ > or > [Mon Nov 22 07:26:58 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer: > http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/cgi-bin/waa1gate.exe Normally, between the Client IP and the "referer" part, there should be the actual error message... at least this is the case in my apache error log. You should also be able to correlate this to the actual requests in the server access.log file. I would say that there is either some kind of configuration problem or illegal requests from the outside. But without seeing the actual log files and all of the configuration files this is only a wild guess. Thomas | |
Ben Konemann | Re: Help needed Apache error.log on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:04:10 +0100 Thomas, Thanks for your reaction. I tried to figure out the correlation between access.log and error.log. The cannot find anything wrong about the opposite request. I have attached a text file with part of the access.log, error.log and WAA11011.log All seems ok. What to do next?? Ben "Thomas Braun" <spam@software-braun.de> schreef in bericht news:1q8k4ysviyrj.2v5eqs70gyhz$.dlg@40tude.net... > Ben Konemann wrote: > > > Very often we have the following error meaages in the Apache error.log: > > > > [Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer: > > http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/ > > or > > [Mon Nov 22 07:26:58 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer: > > http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/cgi-bin/waa1gate.exe > > Normally, between the Client IP and the "referer" part, there should be the > actual error message... at least this is the case in my apache error log. > > You should also be able to correlate this to the actual requests in the > server access.log file. > > I would say that there is either some kind of configuration problem or > illegal requests from the outside. > > But without seeing the actual log files and all of the configuration files > this is only a wild guess. > > Thomas info.txt | |
Thomas Braun | Re: Help needed Apache error.log on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:43:11 +0100 Ben Konemann wrote: > I have attached a text file with part of the access.log, error.log and > WAA11011.log > > All seems ok. I would say that too - everything just seems to ok. Only the error message looks weird because there is not error description... one thing to try could be to use Apache 2.2 instead of 2.0.59 or ask in some Apache related newsgroup / discussion forum... But basically I would say that if everything works as expected from the customer/client side of view then just ignore it regard Thomas | |
Ben Konemann | Re: Help needed Apache error.log on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:29:47 +0100 Thomas, Thanks. I will ignore the error messages and try to get more information via Apache related newsgroups. Ben "Thomas Braun" <spam@software-braun.de> schreef in bericht news:zm7j5dil137$.1rkv02i3h7bwi.dlg@40tude.net... > Ben Konemann wrote: > > > I have attached a text file with part of the access.log, error.log and > > WAA11011.log > > > > All seems ok. > > I would say that too - everything just seems to ok. > > Only the error message looks weird because there is not error > description... one thing to try could be to use Apache 2.2 instead of > 2.0.59 or ask in some Apache related newsgroup / discussion forum... > > But basically I would say that if everything works as expected from the > customer/client side of view then just ignore it > > regard > Thomas |