When it calls home it calls from an IP and that is all we need using the Perl modules IP::Country::Fast and Geography::Countries.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hsing-Foo Wang Sent: 10. marts 2014 16:45 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [discussion] Install statistics for SME Server [SMOLT] 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]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Martens Sent: 10. marts 2014 09:58 To: [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, 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/
_______________________________________________ Discussion about project organisation and overall direction To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected] Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
