Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:52:37 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: lars <lars@gmx.at> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... Message-ID: <20060216154733.D60635@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <43F4ACC5.1040200@gmx.at> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060216154733.D60635>