Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:19:27 +0100 From: Christoph Sold <christoph.sold@server.i-clue.de> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: Christoph Sold <christoph.sold@server.ms-agentur.de>, jmitc2@chmc.org, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Limiting number of downloads per user in Apache?? Message-ID: <3A5EE83F.69437EC3@i-clue.de> References: <14942.44083.319130.373010@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer schrieb: > > Christoph Sold <christoph.sold@server.i-clue.de> types: > > Jim Freeze schrieb: > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Paul M . Lambert wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > > > > > > > With php you can track a visitors ip with $REMOTE_ADDR. > > > > > This should identify the user, even with multiple windows open. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > It would seem so (and one doesn't need PHP to have access to the remote > > > > address, by the way). Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of people > > > > are behind internet proxies; AOL, for example, has many millions of > > > > members, but only a few hundred thousand ip addresses. It's entirely > > > > possible that hundreds of different people using browsers on their > > > > own personal computers could have requests sent from the same IP > > > > address. It's more than possible, but in fact quite common. > > > > > > > > There is _no_ way to track users in a foolproof manner. Sorry. > > > > > > > Yes, I forgot about that. > > > But, I never like to say never...never. :) > > > > > > Visitors can always be tracked with an id and password if bandwidth is > > > that important. > > > > And it's easy to get just another five-minute-password, if you're really > > tempted to do so. > > Cookies can also do this job - and having extra passwords won't defeat > that. Starting a second browser may; I'm not sure how the common > browsers handle sharing cookies between invocations, as they make > having a second invocation a PITA. Alternatively, use WebWasher to have your cookies filtered out, mutilated or something alike. As I said previously: since there is no such thing as a connection youcannot limit the number of them. Constructing them out of the methods at hand (JavaScript, Cookies, whatever your browser allows) depends on the client, which in turn can be mutilated by the user any way he likes. For this reason, I'd just make sure the downloads work as smooth as possible: the faster the download succeds, the sooner the ressources are free for another user. > I'd be interested to know what's making this such a problem. I'm one > of those people who open multiple windows to fetch things. What I see > happening is that the first windows starts downloading full > blast. Starting a second one slows down the first one. Ditto for a > third, fourth, etc. I never see a noticable rise in the *total* > bandwidth I'm using - it's still limited to the bandwidth of the > slowest link on the connection. The first connection gets almost all > of that; having others open just spreads it around, so they all run > slower. For the really curious, I do this because it lets me make more > efficient use of *my* time; I start them all and can do something else > uninterrupted while they finish. Agreed. Just my $.02 EUR -Christoph Sold To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A5EE83F.69437EC3>