- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:18:23 +0900
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
After some discussion off-list with Antonio, I did some very rough log analysis for the markup validator, checking basically the relative weight of the different validation methods, as well as the relative frequency of docs and feedback reading versus validation requests. My sample was based on not even a couple of days, for only one server, so perhaps not a very representative sample of what the validator sees in a month. However the sample has around 300,000 requests to check, which is certainly enough to draw some conclusions. Conclusion 1: the most requested resources are the CSS and header/footer images. I wonder to which extent, if we were to want to reduce the load, merging the CSS into one file would help (for the load, but be more hassle for the maintenance of the stylesheets). Conclusion 2: in terms of "real" resource, the check script is the overwhelming #1. For the ~ 273,000 check requests, there were only ~ 1000 hits to the docs (with, probably, some cacheing going on - the homepage got ~36000 hits in that period), 8000 for the feedback form, 6000 for checklink. The most interesting stat, however, may be the ratio between GET and POST requests (validation by URI and otherwise). Validation by URI accounts for 75% of the requests (with about 8% being actually /check/referer requests, so revalidations through the icons) and upload/direct approximately 25%. It's harder to know which of these are uploads or direct input validations, but referer info tells us that 17% of requests come with referer validator.w3.org, so the last 8 are mozilla/opera gizmo. I am almost certain that close to all of these 17% are file upload requests, but have no way of knowing for sure. -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 02:18:31 UTC