From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 16 19:52:39 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 5C33B16A420 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:52:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF0A43D53 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:52:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D96E62C855; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69093-06; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-82-85.eastlink.ca [24.222.82.85]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E26BB62C87F; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:37 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 26E7B3E1DE; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200FA3950D; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:38 -0400 (AST) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:37 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: lars In-Reply-To: <43F4ACC5.1040200@gmx.at> Message-ID: <20060216154733.D60635@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> <20060216121442.X60635@ganymede.hub.org> <43F4ACC5.1040200@gmx.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:52:39 -0000 On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote: > 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? ;-) Wait, I think we are talking about two different things ... I'm not looking at 'how long its been up', I'm looking at % of time its been up ... rebooting a server once a month to upgrade it, even if its down for 5min, is about 99.989% uptime, which is a good number, but the OS is still up to date ... The 'metric' one should be looking at is how *much* the server is up, not how *long* ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664