From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Don't let search bots look at buglist.cgi
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DD12A5A.1050805@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikJP8i6i+55qCKfD4YhfMyhJNLigg@mail.gmail.com>
On 05/16/2011 02:42 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 05/16/2011 02:32 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It routinely is. bugzilla performance is terrible most of the time
>>>>> for me (up to the point of five timeouts in sequence), svn speed is
>>>>> mediocre at best, and people with access to gcc.gnu.org often observe
>>>>> loads > 25, mostly due to I/O .
>>>>
>>>> And how have you concluded that is due to web crawlers?
>>>
>>> httpd being in the top-10 always, fiddling with bugzilla URLs?
>>> (Note, I don't have access to gcc.gnu.org, I'm relaying info from multiple
>>> instances of discussion on #gcc and richi poking on it; that said, it
>>> still might not be web crawlers, that's right, but I'll happily accept
>>> _any_ load improvement on gcc.gnu.org, how unfounded they might seem)
>>
>> Well, we have to be sensible. If blocking crawlers only results in a
>> small load reduction that isn't, IMHO, a good deal for our users.
>
> I for example see also
>
> 66.249.71.59 - - [16/May/2011:13:37:58 +0000] "GET
> /viewcvs?view=revision&revision=169814 HTTP/1.1" 200 1334 "-"
> "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1;
> +http://www.google.com/bot.html)" (35%) 2060117us
>
> and viewvc is certainly even worse (from an I/O perspecive). I thought
> we blocked all bot traffic from the viewvc stuff ...
It makes sense to block viewcvs, but I don't think it makes as
much sense to block the bugs themselves. That's the part that
is useful to our users.
Andrew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-16 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-13 19:19 Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-16 12:59 ` Richard Guenther
2011-05-16 13:17 ` Andrew Haley
2011-05-16 13:18 ` Michael Matz
2011-05-16 13:28 ` Andrew Haley
2011-05-16 13:32 ` Andreas Schwab
2011-05-16 13:34 ` Richard Guenther
2011-05-16 13:39 ` Andrew Haley
2011-05-16 13:42 ` Michael Matz
2011-05-16 13:42 ` Andrew Haley
2011-05-16 13:45 ` Michael Matz
2011-05-16 14:18 ` Andrew Haley
2011-05-16 14:37 ` Richard Guenther
2011-05-16 15:28 ` Andrew Haley [this message]
2011-05-17 7:17 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-17 11:12 ` Axel Freyn
2011-05-17 13:39 ` Michael Matz
2011-05-16 23:13 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-17 2:53 ` Joseph S. Myers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DD12A5A.1050805@redhat.com \
--to=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).