| 6:54 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Urchin seems pretty popular according to this thread: [webmasterworld.com...]
I believe there's a free trial available, it's probably best to give it a whirl and see if it meets your own particular needs.
| 7:06 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I am not sure about the payment mode of Urchin --> can't really understand anything of this:|
Profile A Profile is a set of rules governing the production of an Urchin Report (a set of standard reports) from log file data. Generally, there will be one Profile per domain/URL (e.g., www. urchin.com). However, there can be any number of Profiles for any one log source, as each may have different rules for exclusion or inclusion of certain log data elements. Urchin's basic license is based on a quantity of Profiles. Urchin's Scheduler is based on the concept of Tasks -- a Task is the scheduled execution of a Profile. Once a Task has been executed, there will be a set of reports created that are defined by the parameters of the Profile. Because there is usually 1:1 ratio of Profiles to URLs, people colloquially say that Urchin includes X "sites", when in reality the licensing is based on Profiles (and, in load-balanced configurations, servers).
| 9:20 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The Urchin 3 license is for 25 different sites or URL's, with Urchin 4 they have called this "profiles" which can sound a little confusing.
You can have up to 100 sites or URL's with version 4, from your login page you can access all of the sites on your server using your user name and password and for the site owners they can only access their own site using their user names and passwords.
With Urchin 3 you could not do this and had to login to all the sites individually with their user names and passwords
You download the trial version and install this on your server, when you purchase Urchin you are given a serial number and license code which you have to place in your Urchin config file which removes the 15 day trail of the demo
Each site or URL with Urchin 3 has to have it's own logfile and at a fixed time of the day urchin runs through this file to give the results of the page views, referals etc that day.
With version 4 it is from the one logfile which the data is collected so you do not need an urchin directory for each of the sites or URL's on your server
Even though the license is for up to 100 sites it still works fine if you only want it for one site
Hope this helps
| 10:40 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ncw164x, thanks a ton!
Our log files are about 1.7gb everyday and the site mentions:
Urchin's data storage will use approximately 10% of the size of raw logs
i.e 170mb per day, if I were to keep data of last 6months, the server space required would be about 30gb ...
Is Urchin recommended for sites that have a lot of traffic like us. Also looking at user feedback on urchin.com
Thanking in advance.
| 3:18 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Is Urchin recommended for sites that have a lot of traffic like us"
One of Uchin's advantages is the speed it can process large log files. If you check out the testimonials on their site you'll see sites like honda using it on 2+ gb daily log files.
Storage space is another issue, we purchased a separate server for logs/stats. One positive is that once urchin has processed a days logs, all the info is stored in urchin's database so if you want you can delete the old logs.
| 3:31 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I use Urchin 3 (it comes with my hosting service) and am pretty happy with it in general. It is fast.
The keyword reports are fragile. They seem to choke on some format of keywords. The monthly report will work for a while and then stop, I assume after it gets some poisonous log entry that it can't handle properly and then any report that has that day in it won't render (I just get a blank screen).
I've never seen anybody complain about that though, so maybe it's just me.
| 11:01 am on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks seth_wilde. Currently we are hosted with RackSpace and would like to go with an additional drive for Urchin as oppose to a new server to store the logs.
Also we have only one logsource i.e. from the ISP
As per our requirement Urchin4 is what suits us the best.
| 10:24 am on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We would like to go with the product - Urchin4, but I have still one query:
Our logs are about 1.7gb every day and Urchin compresses them to 10% and
stores them in a proprietory format. Which means if we have to keep 6 month
data, the data size urchin would take up would be 30GB. Now, running reports
on a 30GB data size could take up a lot of resources.
Please clarify the resources a server could take up analyzing 30GB of data.
Thanking you in advance.
| 12:34 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"The keyword reports are fragile. They seem to choke on some format of keywords. The monthly report will work for a while and then stop, I assume after it gets some poisonous log entry that it can't handle properly and then any report that has that day in it won't render (I just get a blank screen)."
I complained to my webhost about the same thing, and was told that an upgrade to another hosting plan would solve the problem (we are now using a "virtual" Verio server); meaning, presumably, that Urchin needs a lot of processing time to chew through search queries.
Now that's bad, if you want to use the data for search engine optimization.
| 1:12 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
now i am totally lost :(
I have wrote a mail before weekend and today morning a follow up but still no response...from Urchin guys!
| 5:14 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
shaadi I find it strange why they have not responded to your emails, I personally have found the service and support first class each time that I have contacted them over various questions. I have had phone calls from them asking if I am happy with urchin results and can they do anything else for me
I have never had a problem with the keywords or ever seen a blank page for yearly monthly weekly or daily. The configuration for urchin can be changed to suit your own setting, I personally have kept them as default. Could it be this what's causing the problem?
I can't give you an answer to the question regarding analyzing 30GB of data, I assume that's why you contacted urchin to clarify this
Hopefully they will contact you within a couple of days
| 6:39 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Therefore the final conclusion is that Urchin3 doesn’t stand up to the expectation while Urchin4 does…I finally received a mail from Urchin and hopefully the question of regarding analyzing 30GB of data will get solved soon by implementing a load balancing server. Thanks for all your support.