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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
