[Total OT] Trying to improve some numbers ...
Marc G. Fournier
scrappy at hub.org
Thu Feb 16 11:52:39 PST 2006
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
More information about the freebsd-questions