Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:48:05 +0100 From: lars <lars@gmx.at> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ... Message-ID: <43F4ACC5.1040200@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: <20060216121442.X60635@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060216005036.L60635@ganymede.hub.org> <20060216053725.GB15586@parts-unknown.org> <20060216085304.GA52806@storage.mine.nu> <20060216121442.X60635@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43F4ACC5.1040200>