From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 16 22:32:34 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 38FB716A420 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:32:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ldrada@gmail.com) Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA83A43D48 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:32:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ldrada@gmail.com) Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l35so188570nfa for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:32:31 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jRZOhjGZ90sdBzAQfd0cMNtZZI1IxEyR/Lnk+hZ6aT5rf8Taz8LeoHf/y+Eb19Cv5XczPfr0DJxHSmH4MYxImZJfkxvpnk2Y/jSTe18+hn5/7O6/y2TuPYWT4gjZnJ8s+51ttJf/5UMbl3/Y3b96/WeujsT3kF7YwTp6yJLj770= Received: by 10.48.255.10 with SMTP id c10mr280881nfi; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.48.108.10 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:32:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5ceb5d550602161432r18ac6b1bgaa57d315e01ea564@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:32:31 +0100 From: "Daniel A." To: lars@gmx.at In-Reply-To: <43F4F43D.2090304@gmx.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> <43F4CAA3.1020501@schultznet.ca> <43F4F43D.2090304@gmx.at> 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 22:32:34 -0000 On 2/16/06, lars wrote: > Eric Schultz wrote: > > lars wrote: > >> A long uptime means that the machine hasn't been rebooted for a long > >> time. If that time's longer than the time to the last patch that > >> required a kernel recompilation and a reboot, it means the server is n= ot > >> patched. Where's the point in advertising an unpatched machine? > > > > Good afternoon... > > > > Perhaps it means the OS doesn't need to be patched that frequently > Possibly. But patch frequency means what exactly? > > > or has a patch mechanism that avoids reboots? > Exactly, that doesn't exist (yet). > > Although there was something in a Usenix proceeding or somewhere else, > about "micro-reboots" where, to use FreeBSD wordage, > Base and Ports' programs where so modularised to allow this. > Thus making only, say, a driver or some kernel component reboot, > but the majority of the system stays up. > Of course a reboot of the NIC's driver kills that component's "uptime". > > > That's certainly worth advertising (if only were true). > Actually it (this website) means advertising an unpatched machine > running unpatched services not available to the outside. > > > The top machine has been running for almost 6 years on FreeBSD 3.3 whic= h > > means the admin probably believes that "if it ain't broke, don't fix > > it." > Which is not necessarily the best strategy. > But may be right in this case. > > > I would also want to advertise the longevity of an OS. > You mean the ability of that OS to run so long without requiring a reboot= ? > I'm not sure that's that relevant nowadays. > How many OS aren't capable of staying up long? > Even Windows doesn't need too much Viagra to keep it up. > > > (You might not like that last one if you're a hardware vendor :) > > > > Also, a lot of work-arounds for security patches amount to "lock the > > front door." > What do you mean by that? > > > So perhaps some systems don't need to be patched because > > they're administered so as not to require immediate patching/upgrading. > If your machine only runs an NFS daemon and is behind a firewall, > ok, you don't need to patch it asap when an NFS SA and patch is issued, > if all clients connecting to the machine are benign. > > I could also run a machine in some private net protected by firewalls > and whatnot running only this uptime program. > Unless I lose power or some hardware failure occurs I'll have a long > uptime. A bit useless though. > > > > I think that 'uptime' and this website fail to define precisely enough > what the point of the exercise is to be able to make useful conclusions > about something about some OS. > > What exactly do you want to measure to make what decision? > > Do you want to find out how much [%] your OS is available > whithout load just patching it with the latest SA recommended = patches? > > Do you want to find out how much [%] your OS is available > [can serve 100 FTP users simultaneously at wire speed > with this NIC] > just patching it with the latest SA recommended patches? > > Do you want see how long an unpatched OS version can keep it up > without any patches or interaction whatsoever? > > etc. None of the above. It measures your internet-penis. The guy who has had his FreeBSD 3.3 box up running since the dawn of times, has the longest internet-penis in the world. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" >