W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Think before you write Semantic Web crawlers

From: <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:59:48 +0000
Message-ID: 879371845-1308740391-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-588044556-@b13.c6.bise7.blackberry>
To: "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>,semantic-web-request@w3.org,"Yves Raimond" <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Cc: "Christopher Gutteridge" <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>,"Daniel Herzig" <herzig@kit.edu>,semantic-web@w3.org,public-lod@w3.org
Yes. But are there things such as Squid and WebId that can be instituted the provider side? This is an interesting moment. Is it the academic SemWeb running out of public facing steam. A retreat. Or is it a moment of transition from naivety to responsibility. When we think about the Cathedral and the Bazaar. There is a reason why people want Cathedrals. I suggest SemWeb is about Cathedrals. Responsibility for some order and structure. 

Adam     
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Sender: semantic-web-request@w3.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:42:58 
To: Yves Raimond<yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Gutteridge<cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; Daniel Herzig<herzig@kit.edu>; <semantic-web@w3.org>; <public-lod@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Think before you write Semantic Web crawlers

Just to inform the community that the BTC / research crawlers have been successful in killing a major RDF source for e-commerce:

OpenEAN - a transcript of >1 Mio product models and their EAN/UPC code at http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/ has been permanently shut down by the site operator because fighting with bad semweb crawlers is taking too much of his time.

Thanks a lot for everybody who contributed to that. It trashes a month of work and many million useful triples.

Best

Martin Hepp



On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:

> Hello!
> 
>> The difference between these two scenarios is that there's almost no CPU
>> involvement in serving the PDF file, but naive RDF sites use lots of cycles
>> to generate the response to a query for an RDF document.
>> 
>> Right now queries to data.southampton.ac.uk (eg.
>> http://data.southampton.ac.uk/products-and-services/CupCake.rdf ) are made
>> live, but this is not efficient. My colleague, Dave Challis, has prepared a
>> SPARQL endpoint which caches results which we can turn on if the load gets
>> too high, which should at least mitigate the problem. Very few datasets
>> change in a 24 hours period.
> 
> Hmm, I would strongly argue it is not the case (and stale datasets are
> a bit issue in LOD imho!). The data on the BBC website, for example,
> changes approximately 10 times a second.
> 
> We've also been hit in the past (and still now, to a lesser extent) by
> badly behaving crawlers. I agree that, as we don't provide dumps, it
> is the only way to generate an aggregation of BBC data, but we've had
> downtime in the past caused by crawlers. After that happened, it
> caused lots of discussions on whether we should publish RDF data at
> all (thankfully, we succeeded to argue that we should keep it - but
> that's a lot of time spent arguing instead of publishing new juicy RDF
> data!)
> 
> I also want to point out (in response to Andreas's email) that HTTP
> caches are *completely* inefficient to protect a dataset against that,
> as crawlers tend to be exhaustive. ETags and Expiry headers are
> helpful, but chances are that 1) you don't know when the data will
> change, you can just make a wild guess based on previous behavior 2)
> the cache would have expired the time the crawler requests a document
> a second time, as it has ~100M (in our case) documents to crawl
> through.
> 
> Request throttling would work, but you would have to find a way to
> identify crawlers, which is tricky: most of them use multiple IPs and
> don't set appropriate user agents (the crawlers that currently hit us
> the most are wget and Java 1.6 :/ ).
> 
> So overall, there is no excuse for badly behaving crawlers!
> 
> Cheers,
> y
> 
>> 
>> Martin Hepp wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Daniel,
>> Thanks for the link! I will relay this to relevant site-owners.
>> 
>> However, I still challenge Andreas' statement that the site-owners are to
>> blame for publishing large amounts of data on small servers.
>> 
>> One can publish 10,000 PDF documents on a tiny server without being hit by
>> DoS-style crazy crawlers. Why should the same not hold if I publish RDF?
>> 
>> But for sure, it is necessary to advise all publishers of large RDF datasets
>> to protect themselves against hungry crawlers and actual DoS attacks.
>> 
>> Imagine if a large site was brought down by a botnet that is exploiting
>> Semantic Sitemap information for DoS attacks, focussing on the large dump
>> files.
>> This could end LOD experiments for that site.
>> 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Daniel Herzig wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> Have you tried to put a Squid [1]  as reverse proxy in front of your servers
>> and use delay pools [2] to catch hungry crawlers?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>> 
>> [1] http://www.squid-cache.org/

>> [2] http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/DelayPools

>> 
>> On 21.06.2011, at 09:49, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all:
>> 
>> For the third time in a few weeks, we had massive complaints from
>> site-owners that Semantic Web crawlers from Universities visited their sites
>> in a way close to a denial-of-service attack, i.e., crawling data with
>> maximum bandwidth in a parallelized approach.
>> 
>> It's clear that a single, stupidly written crawler script, run from a
>> powerful University network, can quickly create terrible traffic load.
>> 
>> Many of the scripts we saw
>> 
>> - ignored robots.txt,
>> - ignored clear crawling speed limitations in robots.txt,
>> - did not identify themselves properly in the HTTP request header or lacked
>> contact information therein,
>> - used no mechanisms at all for limiting the default crawling speed and
>> re-crawling delays.
>> 
>> This irresponsible behavior can be the final reason for site-owners to say
>> farewell to academic/W3C-sponsored semantic technology.
>> 
>> So please, please - advise all of your colleagues and students to NOT write
>> simple crawler scripts for the billion triples challenge or whatsoever
>> without familiarizing themselves with the state of the art in "friendly
>> crawling".
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Martin Hepp
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

>> 
>> You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/

>> 


Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 11:00:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC