Niall O Broin wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006, at 08:22, Kenn Humborg wrote:
>>> What if they are doing If-Modified-Since: GETs. The first server
>> will redirect and the other will return 304 (I think) meaning not
>> modified, so you won't see it in the count of 200s.
>>> Ah - that makes sense, and my apologies to the previous poster who
> mentioned 304s as this is probably what he meant too, but I didn't
> understand him.
Yeah, sorry If I wasn't clear enough.
> However, sensible as it sounds, it's not what's happening :-( My
> original post was incorrect (it was late :-( ) and the count of 200
> result codes I gave was in fact the count of ALL matches in the logs
> for the redirected files on serverB, which did contain a significant
> number of 304s. Apologies for the confusion, but the basic question
> remains the same - why do 25% of the requesters to the original server
> not follow the redirect?
Maybe it's a DNS issue? They're not resolving the redirected site? Has
it been up long or changed IP adress recently? You know how some ISPs
love to hold onto their old DNS cache.
Can you grep for hosts that get 302s, but don't hit the redirect server?
The answer's probably in the logs somewhere, if you grep it enough.
Martin.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
