> I was looking at the various stats programs(http://master/mrtg/), and noticed > that for the last week, master's incoming bw, outgoing bw, and load, have been > unusually high. > > After some digging, I found 2 main causes. > > 1: The apt-listbugs author has seemed it nescessary to export all debbugs > data, by way of a symlink, and then to allow admins to request bug reports > when packages get updated. This was not done with any consultation with > any BTS admin, nor any admin that is invovled in the machine that would be > handling this increased load.
On IRC, I was suggested that apt-listbugs should use index.db. I had to use debbugs .status file too because index.db doesn't have subject. apt-listbugs fetches just few static files from web server, two index files and .status files of actual critical bugs. So if 5 critical bugs are found, total 7 static files are downloaded. apt-listbugs can be used via normal proxy servers. Anyway, i have to work for something to solve this problem. Currently, i have a plan to make a mirror site for apt-listbugs (i didn't have a such site) and if index.db will have subject, then apt-listbugs doesn't need to fetch .status file at all. > A quick grep thru the access.log for the bts, shows 116k total lines, and > 48k lines are for apt-listbugs, requesting .status files, or the index > files. > > What is not shown, is the requests for the actual bug reports. These can't > be easily tracked, as apt-listbugs uses querybts(from reportbug), and a few > other fallbacks, so it's not easy to match up those lines. apt-listbugs doesn't use querybts implicity. It's invoked by people. So I guess many cgi access is nothing to do with apt-listbugs. Actually, apt-listbugs has cgi to fetch bug reports, but it's not a default action. In addition, when apt-listbugs uses cgi directly, it sends user-agent which shows apt-listbugs. -- Masato Taruishi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>