clem.oudot@gmail.com wrote:

2015-02-11 18:33 GMT+01:00 h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no:

...

On 11. feb. 2015 12:38, Michael Str=C3=B6der wrote:

...

h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no wrote:

...

Cool feture, but please use fewer characteres in the already bloated log. How about "time=3D<integer>us" or even omit the "us"?

+1

But 'time' sounds a bit general. How about 'tdu' or even 'td' as abbreviation for "time duration"?

I don't think so. You can't see from that what it means unless you already know, so you have to look it up just to see if you're interested. 'time' you can decide to look up if you are interested.

Seems other LDAP servers have choosen 'etime' (see http://ludopoitou.com/2015/02/24/about-auditing-ldap-operations/). Why not try to use the same word?

etime is fine with me. The other problem here is that it's counting duration from when slapd received the request (which is fine) but usually the op gets queued immediately after. For this etime to be useful we need to know both the amount of time spent queued, and the amount of time spent actually executing. qtime and etime?