On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:57:50AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:44:15AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > uniq-ing the IP addresses doing the downloading. That method has the > > > potential to cut out legitimate, repetitive downloads from inside a > > > firewall. I'd feel better cutting those ticks out if they were > > > > I'm not sure if you can see this in our logs or not (you might have to > > have the individual mirrors logs :( ), but if the response code is a > > 206, that means it was a RANGE request - to download part of a file. > > It's not at all uncommon for a download manager to open 20-30 > > connections to download the same file for the same user., > > > > So I'd opt for the conservative approach of uniques as well. > > To clarify, I'm already filtering these out on a 302 code. How would > that change your opinion, if at all? Isn't 302 a (temp) relocation? Why would filtering out 302 also filter out 206? Maybe the cleanest solution is to count downloaded bytes and divide by image size. That way you properly count ranged downloads. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpLEmd4MKWGB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
