forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject New Apache XML Site! :-)
Date Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:15:28 GMT
As with all statistics, we need to treat them with care.

Perhaps it would be better if we each analysed the September
log files from our own webservers and pooled the results.

I think it would be dangerous to base any decision upon
one day from www.apache.org site, especially when Forrest
aims to have broader scope.

...

Steven Noels wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
> > Jeff Turner wrote:
> > 
> >> We really need stats on 4.x usage for xml.apache.org to make a good
> >> judgement.
> > 
> > 
> > I'll try and make a browser usage analysis for the month of september. I 
> > would be using analog or webalizer - does anyone else has killer tips 
> > for log analyzers?
> > 
> > </Steven>
> 
> I put up an analysed log of 1 day (3.868.269 requests, 271.678 
> gigabytes) on http://www.apache.org/~stevenn/browserstats/
> 
> I'm not a browser User Agent dictionary, it seems to me that the first 
> non-IE, probably-dated browser is identified by "Mozilla/3.01 
> (compatible;)", totaling 2.11% of that day. And Mozilla at 1.26% :-(
> 
> OK, that's one day, and due to the sheer size of these logfiles and the 
> current load-issues of daedalus I'm reluctant to run it across an entire 
> month's worth of logs, but this already learns us something.
> 
> The '10%' of older browsers on apache.org has been an urban city legend, 
> IMO.

Careful, they might be hidden in the grey 50% part.
I think if we added up all the 0.02% entries for
older browsers then we would get up to 10%

Anyway, what decision are wanting to make?

--David



Mime
View raw message