On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 04:52:20PM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
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>
> > > 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
I misused a pronoun -- I am specifically *grepping for 302*, which I
did not state clearly. Did anyone look at the commands page I linked
Maybe the cleanest solution is to count downloaded bytes and divide
image size. That way you properly count ranged downloads.
Command suggestions are very welcome. I really don't have time to
delve into this incredibly deeply at the moment.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
- - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug