--------------020002000501030303090404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think they do a bit more than just say a ping check, web page availability, etc to get the uptime. They actually depend on the OS to provide uptime information. From the FAQ: *What is 'Uptime' ?* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The 'uptime' as presented in these reports is the "time since last reboot" of the front end computer or computers that are hosting a site. We can detect this by looking at the data that we record when we sample a site. We can detect how long the responding computer(s) hosting a web site has been running, and by recording these samples over a long period of time we can plot graphs that show this as a line. Note that this is *not* the same as the availability <http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#availability> of a site. *Which operating systems provide uptime information ?* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes <http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#uptime> for are: * BSD/OS * FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3] * HP-UX [recent versions] * IRIX * Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems * Solaris 2.6 and later * Windows 2000 * Windows Server 2003 * Windows XP Operating systems that do *not* provide uptime <http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#uptime> information include; * AIX * AS/400 * Compaq Tru64 * DG/UX * MacOS * MacOSX * NT3/Windows 95 * NT4/Windows 98 * NetBSD/OpenBSD * NetWare * OS/2 * OS/390 * SCO UNIX * SunOS 4 * VM Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days. Shannon Tim Fournet wrote: >If I understand them correctly, Netcraft measures uptime by uptime of >the site in question. If you've got a cluster of web servers all >responding for the same web site, the site will be up as long as there >is a server to respond for it, even if individual cluster members fail. > >On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 13:22, Shannon Roddy wrote: > > >>What I want to know is how in the hell Verio is getting >1000 days >>uptime on Win2k/IIS5???? There must be something going on that lies??? >> They must have had to reboot at some point to put in patches??? This >>just doesn't make sense to me. Either that or their system must be >>vulnerable as hell? ANyone have clue? >> >>If the numbers are real I hope they are paying that sysadmin >100k a >>year, because he has performed a feat I thought was not possible! >> >>Shannon >> >>John Hebert wrote: >> >> >> >>>"We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I >>>fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is >>>finished," said Jeff Stucky, senior systems engineer on the Microsoft.com >>>operations team on this Microsoft page . >>> >>>Uptimes of three months is crazy? Then Unix must be absolutely >>>stark-raving-mad-running-in-traffic insane: >>> >>>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html >>> >>>John Hebert >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Glenn Rumfellow >>>To: Technical Group >>>Sent: 4/25/03 7:36 AM >>>Subject: Ballmer users in Windows 2003 Server >>> >>>I especially liked the last few paragraphs: >>> >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30395.html >>><<The Register.url>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>General mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>General mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >[email protected] >http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > --------------020002000501030303090404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> I think they do a bit more than just say a ping check, web page availability, etc to get the uptime. They actually depend on the OS to provide uptime information. From the FAQ:<br> <br> <p><font size="+1" color="#333399"><b>What is 'Uptime' ?</b></font> </p> <hr width="100%" align="left"> <p> </p> The 'uptime' as presented in these reports is the "time since last reboot" of the front end computer or computers that are hosting a site. We can detect this by looking at the data that we record when we sample a site. We can detect how long the responding computer(s) hosting a web site has been running, and by recording these samples over a long period of time we can plot graphs that show this as a line. Note that this is <b>not</b> the same as the <a href="http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#availability";>availability</a> of a site. <br> <br> <br> <p><font size="+1" color="#333399"><b>Which operating systems provide uptime information ?</b></font> </p> <hr width="100%" align="left"> <p> </p> <p>Operating systems we can usually work out <a href="http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#uptime";>uptimes</a> for are: </p> <ul> <li>BSD/OS </li> <li>FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3] </li> <li>HP-UX [recent versions] </li> <li>IRIX </li> <li>Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems </li> <li>Solaris 2.6 and later </li> <li>Windows 2000 </li> <li>Windows Server 2003 </li> <li>Windows XP </li> </ul> <p> Operating systems that do <b>not</b> provide <a href="http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#uptime";>uptime</a> information include; </p> <ul> <li>AIX </li> <li>AS/400 </li> <li>Compaq Tru64 </li> <li>DG/UX </li> <li>MacOS </li> <li>MacOSX </li> <li>NT3/Windows 95 </li> <li>NT4/Windows 98 </li> <li>NetBSD/OpenBSD </li> <li>NetWare </li> <li>OS/2 </li> <li>OS/390 </li> <li>SCO UNIX </li> <li>SunOS 4 </li> <li>VM </li> </ul> Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days. <br> <br> Shannon<br> <br> Tim Fournet wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> <pre wrap="">If I understand them correctly, Netcraft measures uptime by uptime of the site in question. If you've got a cluster of web servers all responding for the same web site, the site will be up as long as there is a server to respond for it, even if individual cluster members fail. On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 13:22, Shannon Roddy wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">What I want to know is how in the hell Verio is getting >1000 days uptime on Win2k/IIS5???? There must be something going on that lies??? They must have had to reboot at some point to put in patches??? This just doesn't make sense to me. Either that or their system must be vulnerable as hell? ANyone have clue? If the numbers are real I hope they are paying that sysadmin >100k a year, because he has performed a feat I thought was not possible! Shannon John Hebert wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">"We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished," said Jeff Stucky, senior systems engineer on the Microsoft.com operations team on this Microsoft page . Uptimes of three months is crazy? Then Unix must be absolutely stark-raving-mad-running-in-traffic insane: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html";>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html</a> John Hebert -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Rumfellow To: Technical Group Sent: 4/25/03 7:36 AM Subject: Ballmer users in Windows 2003 Server I especially liked the last few paragraphs: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30395.html";>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30395.html</a> <<The Register.url>> _______________________________________________ General mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net";>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> _______________________________________________ General mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net";>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> _______________________________________________ General mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net";>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> <br> </body> </html> --------------020002000501030303090404--
