Re: Logs not getting compressed

Thanh Ha <zxiiro@...>

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 18:34, Robert Varga <nite@...> wrote:
On 31/05/2019 22:29, Thanh Ha wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 17:05, Robert Varga <nite@...
> <mailto:nite@...>> wrote:
>     Also, would it make sense to compress them with 'xz -T 0 -0'?
> Hi Robert,

Hello Thanh,

> The reason we didn't go with xz compression in the past (we looked into
> it) is because you cannot open a xz file natively in the browser. It's
> nice especially for folks who spend a lot of time looking at logs to be
> able to navigate to a log file on the server and click and have it
> immediately open. If we compressed with xz this would become an
> inconvenient 3 step process where you have to first download, then
> decompress, then open.

Ah yes, I did not read up on the web-side of the topic. This is a
concern critically important for me. offers some insight,
eventually leading to

> With that consideration I think staying on gz compression would be best
> until xz files can be opened directly from browser like we can with gz.

I just checked, FF67 does not recognize .xz, but it does send:

Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br

which leads me to
and hence -- can we reasonably switch to Brotli?

Hi Robert,

Sounds promising and I'm all for this as long as it works out of the box. Anil setup a test last week here:

I'm using the latest version of Chrome which still asks me to open the xz file. I'm not sure if the server-side Apache server needs additional configuration to enable this?

Anil, is this something you can investigate?


Join { to automatically receive all group messages.