On 28 Mar 2006, at 13:27, Martin Feeney wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, but it's not that - the address of this server is long established.
> 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.
That's easily done - I've grepped the logs for one file, and seen a
side by side view of the requests to serverA and then to serverB. All
that does is show me what IPs didn't follow the redirects.
Niall
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!
