Right, I was looking for the install epoch and there it is ;-)
Now for the GeoIP data? otherwise it would be difficult to map
geographically right?
On 10-3-2014 16:39, Jesper Knudsen wrote:
The config DB seems to have the answers and this could/should
obviously just be reused. The SystemID is generated using Data::UUID
which promises it to be unique. As I see it we have our data in the
database.
# config show sysconfig
sysconfig=configuration
InstallEpoch=1372281536
KeyboardType=pc
Keytable=dk
Language=en_US
PreviousSystemMode=serveronly
Registration=none
ReleaseVersion=8.1
SystemID=d0a6d2e7-f4be-4ebf-ae5a-7507775690ab
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Hsing-Foo Wang
*Sent:* 10. marts 2014 15:40
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [discussion] Install statistics for SME Server [SMOLT]
I hope Shad would be willing to speak up, for he is fully aware and
maintained all 'phone home' and install UUID, EPOCH stuff. Hopefully
it will prevent us from re-inventing the wheel.
On 10-3-2014 15:22, Jesper Knudsen wrote:
I agree that a unique ID would be beneficial in the long run and
would also eliminate discussions on polluted data -- I was only
trying to make a point that we do not need an opt-in for the
suggested data.
I have used the MAC address before for that purpose -- before VMs
it was unique but now we need to combined with something more.
Maybe the UUID for the root device (found via blkid).
f.ex:
/dev/mapper/main-root: UUID="a41a9845-53be-489b-969c-bee4d387af3d"
TYPE="ext3"
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Jonathan Martens
*Sent:* 10. marts 2014 09:58
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [discussion] Install statistics for SME Server [SMOLT]
On 9-3-2014 23:33, Jesper Knudsen wrote:
The only think that this would "reveal" beyond what a YUM
update does is a unique ID and install date (why do we need
that?). I do not think we need an opt-in for that. Basically,
as long as the data gathering is so simple I do not even think
a unique ID is needed -- we are not looking for exact science
here but marketing number and if a few servers are behind the
same router/IP that will, or should not, disturb the picture much.
We could and should properly make an opt-in solution if we
decided to gather more detailed (and usefull??) data as I
suggested.
Greetings,
Jesper
Although a unique key does not sound as a requirement for you, I
know it makes extension to the data model much easier, I think it
is not such a big hassle to create one for every server. I could
imagine that in the future we would like to now the install base
on a per version base and would like to have an update when a
machine changes version number for instance, this would be hard to
do without a unique id. In other words without the unique ID you
do not know if you get duplicates and statistics data is polluted
easily, which IMHO defeats the purpose of this exercise.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Discussion about project organisation and overall direction
To unsubscribe, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Searchable archive athttp://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
_______________________________________________
Discussion about project organisation and overall direction
To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected]
Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
_______________________________________________
Discussion about project organisation and overall direction
To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected]
Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
