# Nginix 0.5.34 returns 499's for proxied content **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [January 2, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776 "2008-01-02T15:02:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pezdude)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776/1 "2008-01-02T15:02:27Z")
Hi, I just noticed something in our AWStats analysis, a small percentage (1.7% by awstats’ count) of requests are being returned 499. 71.104.220.183 - - [03/Jan/2008:00:45:56 +1100] “GET /people/dairygirl/ art/506041-1-the-view HTTP/1.1” 499 0 "[http://www.redbubble.com/people/dairygirl](http://www.redbubble.com/people/dairygirl) " “Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/ 523.10.6 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0.4 Safari/523.10.6” However the rails production log indicates that it send a 200 Jan 03 00:46:35 xserve1 rails[20472]: Parameters: {“action”=\>“show”, “id”=\>“506041-1-the-view”, “controller”=\>“artist/art”, “person\_id”=\>“dairygirl”} Jan 03 00:46:35 xserve1 rails[20472]: Completed in 0.06647 (15 reqs/ sec) | Rendering: 0.03452 (51%) | DB: 0.01799 (27%) | 200 OK [[http://www.redbubble.com/people/dairygirl/art/506041-1-the-view](http://www.redbubble.com/people/dairygirl/art/506041-1-the-view) ] | Records: 445 | Selects: 25 Visiting the offending URL with curl or firefox+firebug can’t trigger the problem. Has anyone seen this behavior before? Cheers Dave ---
**Author:** ![pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pezdude)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776/2 "2008-01-02T15:40:37Z")
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Dave C. wrote: > I just noticed something in our AWStats analysis, a small percentage > (1.7% by awstats’ count) of requests are being returned 499. special code 499 means client closed connection before nginx response ---
**Author:** ![pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pezdude)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776/3 "2008-01-05T02:26:47Z")
Thank you very much. I guess my only question is, can I rewrite this error code to 200 (as the 499 upsets awstats) Cheers Dave ---
**Author:** ![pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pezdude)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 3:24am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776/4 "2008-01-05T03:24:37Z")
Are you sure you want it to return 200? My understanding is that the user never received the content because they closed the connection. ---
**Author:** ![pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pezdude)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 3:56am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776/5 "2008-01-05T03:56:18Z")
However, from the applications point of view, we handled the request successfully, and invested processing resources doing so, so it should be accounted for. Cheers Dave ---
**Author:** ![pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pezdude](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pezdude)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginix-0-5-34-returns-499s-for-proxied-content/124776/6 "2008-01-05T03:58:03Z")
That’s why it returned a 4xx error instead of a 5xx error. 4xx errors (like 404 - File not found, 403 - Unauthorized) tend to be because the client has done something wrong, 5xx errors are when the server did something wrong.