Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:48:13 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Tim Erlin <tperlin@yahoo.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Downtime (Was: uptime limits) Message-ID: <15114.6589.262955.23712@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <87633656@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Erlin <tperlin@yahoo.com> types: > Wouldn't a more meaningful measure be downtime? Has > anyone put together info on how much downtime, as a > percentage, is required for regular > upgrades/maintanence for different OSes. That would > allow one to distinguish between downtime that's > expected and downtime that isn't (e.g. crashes). > > I would think that would be an important distinction. Scheduled downtime isn't that big a deal - it should be part of the plan. You can warn users, provide alternatives, and such like. It is important in the planning stages, because having lots of it raises the cost of the system. Unscheduled downtime is the one that's really interesting, because it's the one that pisses users off, and otherwise results in unexpected expenses. I've been at organizations that tracked all that, but it's been long enough ago (~BSD 4.2) that the information isn't really relevant. They also tracked load average and disk usage, so they intelligently budget more processors and disks. Both of these seem to be a rarity in the networked shops I've been at since. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15114.6589.262955.23712>