[Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ...

[lars]

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? ;-)