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

[Marc G. Fournier]

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 at hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664