|
Home > Archive > Web Servers on Unix and Linux > June 2006 > multiple identical GET requests within few seconds in access.log
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
multiple identical GET requests within few seconds in access.log
|
|
| amoebe 2006-06-26, 1:17 pm |
| hi,
by analysing the acces.log, i noticed that there are some GET requests
for a specific file (PDF), that were invoked 10-30 times within a few
seconds by the same IP adress. i assume that these invocations come
from a download-manager.
are there any other possible reasons? prefetch mechanism? proxy?
most important: is there any way of finding out, if these requests are
each user-invoked or by a program? does a download-manager send
specific headers?
| |
| Joshua Slive 2006-06-27, 1:17 pm |
|
amoebe wrote:
> hi,
> by analysing the acces.log, i noticed that there are some GET requests
> for a specific file (PDF), that were invoked 10-30 times within a few
> seconds by the same IP adress. i assume that these invocations come
> from a download-manager.
> are there any other possible reasons? prefetch mechanism? proxy?
> most important: is there any way of finding out, if these requests are
> each user-invoked or by a program? does a download-manager send
> specific headers?
| |
| Joshua Slive 2006-06-27, 1:17 pm |
|
amoebe wrote:
> hi,
> by analysing the acces.log, i noticed that there are some GET requests
> for a specific file (PDF), that were invoked 10-30 times within a few
> seconds by the same IP adress. i assume that these invocations come
> from a download-manager.
> are there any other possible reasons? prefetch mechanism? proxy?
> most important: is there any way of finding out, if these requests are
> each user-invoked or by a program? does a download-manager send
> specific headers?
Check the status code on those responses. You'll notice it is 206
"Partial Content", rather than 200 "Ok". These are byte-range
requests, where the client will request only specific pieces of the
file. Acrobat uses this type of requests consistently, so you can
expect them when serving pdfs.
Joshua.
| |
| amoebe 2006-06-28, 7:22 am |
| Joshua Slive schrieb:
> amoebe wrote:
>
> Check the status code on those responses. You'll notice it is 206
> "Partial Content", rather than 200 "Ok". These are byte-range
> requests, where the client will request only specific pieces of the
> file. Acrobat uses this type of requests consistently, so you can
> expect them when serving pdfs.
>
> Joshua.
thanks for the response Joshua, but the status code are all 200.
i.e.:
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:43:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
83-65-124-113.dynamic.adsl-line.inode.at - - [28/Jun/2006:09:44:33
+0200] "GET /l/9311146044428/Apcg6YK2h4 HTTP/1.1" 200 5 "-"
"Mozilla/4.01 [en](Win95;I)"
in this specific case, i know the user was using go!zilla to download
the file!
|
|
|
|
|