Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:01:13 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Gotta start somewhere ... how many of us are really out there? Message-ID: <44CE4569.1010300@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <44CDE02F.4090604@dial.pipex.com> References: <20060728164526.E27679@ganymede.hub.org> <df9ac37c0607281319s5da0f64ese5fa57df1ef11a4d@mail.gmail.com> <ef10de9a0607282139i51fdde5ch58525fa3347364d2@mail.gmail.com> <87slklj9hu.fsf@photon.homelinux.org> <20060729021007.F27679@ganymede.hub.org> <44CD41EC.6030605@freebsd.org> <20060730233839.I27679@ganymede.hub.org> <44CDAA98.3030702@freebsd.org> <44CDE02F.4090604@dial.pipex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > Counting portsnap and cvsup accesses is non-intrusive - i.e. nothing > sent from local host - will count systems from any version of FreeBSD, > but will never count everything because sites with multiple hosts may > easily have local propagation mechanisms. But you will get an order of > magnitude. However, how do you deal with systems with variable IPs? For the portsnap usage statistics, I'm measuring how many days of updates were downloaded per day. In the long run this will be equal to the number of systems using portsnap, whether they update daily or monthly, and whether they have a fixed IP address or a different IP address every time. The only problem I've seen with this method is that it is rather sensitive to holidays: There is a dip in measured portsnap usage in late December, folllowed by a sharp spike in early January before the measured usage returns to normal, since many systems were not being updated over the Christmas holiday, and then suddenly needed to "catch up" in early January (and since they were downloading several weeks of updates, they each looked like several machines). Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44CE4569.1010300>