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(a)gmail.com> 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
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