Statistics problem

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Apr 28 13:52:20 UTC 2009


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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20090428/5c624ac8/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list