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
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