My issue is I cannot believe the number of hits I am getting - or more

accurately should I trust the number of hits I am getting.

Check your raw Web log files.

They'll identify the date, time, and ip address of each "hit".

FTP into your site; if you can't find them then ask your Web host.

I have written a hit counter, which I believe counts the times my page

is hit by a user for each unique session by the user.

The relevant part of my code is below:

If IsEmpty(Session("To­talCount")) Then

' Increment or reset the count

If Weekday(Date(),vbSu­nday) = 1 And dtDate <> Date then iCount

= 1

Else iCount = iCount + 1

End If dtDate = Date

End If

Session("TotalCount­")= iCount

The page is www.middlesexccl.co­m

My issue is I cannot believe the number of hits I am getting - or more

accurately should I trust the number of hits I am getting.

When I first go to the URL I see the count increased by one, but it

does not incredment if I reload the page.

Is there any techniques that the clubs involved could be using, i.e.

some sort of 'fancy' linking to the page from their web site which

might be causing the count to be incremented unduely? I am sorry if

that sounds a little vague but I cannot udnerstand where the hits are

coming from.

If anyone has any other odeas on how to test this please let me have

details.

Many thanks to all those who give this isue their attention.

Paul Smith

Application.Lock

If IsEmpty(Application­("TotalHits")) then

Application("TotalH­its") = 1

Else

Application("TotalH­its") = Applicaton("TotalHi­ts") + 1

End If

Application.Unlock

Don't forget that the figures will be lost if the IIS process is

recycled/stopped/st­arted though.

Daniel Crichton wrote on 18 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

I do not think a lock will be usefull/neccesary for a single statement.

So it is not usefull at all, methinks, better use a database or a

single file.

---------------

The application stored counter could be used for counting the number of

"active" visitors, since they are zero at a new application start

anyway.

The count up and count down could be put in the global asa session

subs.

Perha[s the OP wanted that.

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@i­nterxnl.net> wrote in message

news:Xns9AFEB4FBFC4­F0eejj99@194.109.133­.242...

Request A arrives

Request B arrices

Thread handling A reads Totalhits (its 10)

Thread handling B reads TotalHits (its still 10)

Thread handling B assigns 11 to TotalHits

Thread handling A also assigns 11 to TotalHits

Technically then the Lock is necessary although in reality it might not

actually matter.

Anthony Jones wrote on 20 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

That could be true, but it also could be,

that ASP in singlethreaded on a per statement basis.

The only time that would be true is if the whole site is single

threaded due to debugging being enabled.

Anthony Jones wrote on 21 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

Why?

There is no advantage to multithread a single "let" statement,

and in global.asa it even is detrimental.

So it is just the choice of the VBS interpreter programmer.

Do we know, or can we test this?

Thread 1 handling A reads Totalhits (its 10)

Dispite what may seem the line:-

Application("TotalH­its") = Applicaton("TotalHi­ts") + 1

is not a single atomic operation

There is a read, there is an add and there is a write (with plenty in

between)

all of which may be pre-empted at any time.

At this point thread 1 has merely read the value then its pre-empted

and the scheduler starts executing Thread 2

Anthony Jones wrote on 22 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

[ etc ]

You are so wrong in thinking,

that because it is logical,

it is implemented that way.

While it could very well be the case,

the logic does not prove the factual implementation.

Ony the source code or the testing can prove it.

Here is a fact the VBScript engine has no idea what an application object

is.

Here is another fact VBScript does not compile to native code.

Here is another fact VBScript doesn't create a zillion critical sections

around simple assignment statements.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Anthony Jones wrote on 22 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

All these things are circumstancial,

and do not prove a thing.

It still might be that a let statement in global.asa is internally

singlethreaded, because it was felt convenient.

(sigh) Well you're entitled to hold to whatever beliefs you want to.

For the record so that no one else under any illusion this:-

application("thing"­) = application("thing"­) + 1

is not threadsafe. In order ensure the value is updated correctly the

application object must be locked.

Anthony Jones wrote on 23 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

I am not, I constantly say that your idea is probably true,

but it is not true, simply because you say so.

Good for you, I have not read your c.v., you did not tell me your

credentials till now, you either are well versed in VB ans VBS, or at

least

you think you are.

That all does not mean that others like me should believe you an your

word.

I do not think for a moment that you are dishonest, btw.

Oh, Anthony, it is not about what you yourself think to be a fact,

that you have proved beond reasonable doubt.

However, your stand that that is enough reason to require that others

believe you, is, perhaps also because of your self expressed

infallability,

unreasonable.

You did not express, that you tested the let assignment line in

interpreting global.asa to be internally multitreaded, or have looked at

the assembly or intermediate code for that.

You only express fact from inference that you believe it is generally that

way.

--

Evertjan.

The Netherlands.

(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

http://msdn.microso­ft.com/en-us/library­/ms525184.aspx

From the Application.Lock documentation:

"A page does not need to lock the application object to edit the

application collection. If one page tries to edit the application

collection without locking and a second page also tries to edit the

collection, no error is sent by IIS and the Application object ends up

in an inconsistent state."

Chris Hohmann wrote on 27 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

One would need to know what they mean by "not need" in this case, Chris.

How can a state ever be inconsistent?

And I doubt the documentation writers of MS always know what past

implementors did manage to put in the code. Remember the still present

"endif" allowance bug in VBS single line if-else-then?

The next interesting Q is, how we could ever test this inconsistency,

and more so prove the possible absense of such inconsistency.

--

Evertjan.

The Netherlands.

(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

I assume they meant that no error is thrown if you attempt to modify

the application object without using lock/unlock. There's a contact

link at the bottom of the page if you'd like to request clarification.

Anthony already gave an example of inconsistent state.

No way to know for sure unless you ask.

I don't remember the still present "endif" allowance.

Use the hit count example without the lock/unlock and send 100

simultaneous requests.

Chris Hohmann wrote on 27 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

A state is a state, [because a computer is a state machine].

so it can never be inconsistent.

No, in such an organisation, no one will know what happened years before.

"We" talked about it a few? years ago on usenet:

if bool then do() end if

should give an error because it should have been just:

if bool then do()

as "end if" is only defined for the [younger] multiline if statement:

if bool then

do()

end if

And is was said by MS that the error was recognized and corrected before,

and then the great corporation websites protested, as their sites had to

much "inconsistent" ­ pages to change them overnight.

So the error was reintroduced.

Simultaneous? How would you do that?

From one machine, they would necessarily not be simultaneous,

and for 100 machines, well, I doubt you could synchronize with some

precision.

And if no strange things happen, as I expect also in the case of absesne

of implied lock, because you cannot do the simultaneous job. would that

prove anything?

--

Evertjan.

The Netherlands.

(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@i­nterxnl.net> wrote in message

news:Xns9B07D1E7A6C­6Deejj99@194.109.133­.242...

Why don't you try it and let us know how it goes?

No.

I've actually given up trying to convince Evertjan, this sort of thread

hasn't cropped in quite sometime, I'm disappointed that is has now.

Anthony Jones wrote on 27 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

Antony,

Why disappointed ?

Are you disappointed not being able to convince someone due to non

convincing arguments?

All the time I stated that you are probably right in your assertion,

but that does not mean it is a fact, as you claimed.

That is why it is theoretically interesting to conceive a test.

In practice it is unimportant, as the exact number of user hits will be

contaminated by the number of bot/crawler hits that no one wants to

include

in such count.

Possibly you [general you] can show in such a test, that events are lost,

but the opposite, that no event counts can be lost seems unreachable.

I doubt you [general you] can get enough semiconcurrent page requests

where

there is no loss due to a sort of denial of service to test it reliably.

The only way would be reseaching and analyzing the source code. Seems an

hypothetical possiblility.

--

Evertjan.

The Netherlands.

(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Says you.

Says you.

Hyperbole and unsupported statement of fact.

Wouldn't it be easier to admit you were wrong and move on?

But please move on, I am done with you two on this subject.

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@i­nterxnl.net> wrote in message

news:Xns9B086187846­93eejj99@194.109.133­.242...

I win.

Chris Hohmann wrote on 27 aug 2008 in

microsoft.public.in­etserver.asp.general­:

One would need to know what they mean by "not need" in this case, Chris.

How can a state ever be inconsistent?