From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 16 16:48:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E3616A420 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:48:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lars@gmx.at) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 35A8143D45 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:48:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lars@gmx.at) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2006 16:47:58 -0000 Received: from 234.241.203.62.cust.bluewin.ch (EHLO [192.168.1.10]) [62.203.241.234] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 16 Feb 2006 17:47:58 +0100 X-Authenticated: #912863 Message-ID: <43F4ACC5.1040200@gmx.at> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:48:05 +0100 From: lars User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> <20060216121442.X60635@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20060216121442.X60635@ganymede.hub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lars@gmx.at List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:48:01 -0000 Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Actually, in my case, I'm more interested in % uptime then long uptimes, > something that this site does keep track of ... > Ok, it's not entirely silly then ;-) I'm not convinced though that "uptime" is a useful metric. At a time when Windows NT was so useless and unstable the uptime of any OS other than Windows NT may have been a "metric" if only a bragging-metric. But we should be over that now. I think "availability", which needs to be defined and measured precisely, is more useful. Who cares how long a machine has been up, if it was only up that long because it's a complete nuisance to update and installing and upgrading and testing takes so long it eats the uptime and the admins are scared to reboot it? ;-)