On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
I'm not entirely against such efforts of long uptimes.
I strongly believe in efforts to back up rumor with fact, as in
the rumor 'FreeBSD is rock-solid'.
Actually I believe it is, but I can't prove it beyond talking
of my own experience with it.
IMHO a lot of s
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
You can say you are losing out on 'stability fixes', else the server
itself wouldn't stay up that long ... so about the only thing you
lose would be performance related improvements and/or stuff like
memory leakage ...
And I could do this all *without* any firewalls pr
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
If your machine only runs an NFS daemon and is behind a firewall,
ok, you don't need to patch it asap when an NFS SA and patch is issued, if
all clients connecting to the machine are benign.
Actually,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
If your machine only runs an NFS daemon and is behind a firewall,
ok, you don't need to patch it asap when an NFS SA and patch is
issued, if all clients connecting to the machine are benign.
Actually, there are alot of situations where
(Oops, sorry, forgot to cc)
Nope... the IP "number" are the measures of your penis.
Like this: [length].[width].[height].[Unidentified value of fourth dimension]
With IPv6, we now measure our IP with a whole four extra dimensions.
Yeah, it's rather complicated.
On 2/17/06, Glenn Dawson <[EMAIL
At 02:32 PM 2/16/2006, Daniel A. wrote:
> What exactly do you want to measure to make what decision?
>
> Do you want to find out how much [%] your OS is available
> whithout load just patching it with the latest SA
recommended patches?
>
> Do you want t
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
If your machine only runs an NFS daemon and is behind a firewall,
ok, you don't need to patch it asap when an NFS SA and patch is issued, if
all clients connecting to the machine are benign.
Actually, there are alot of situations where this sort of thing is
p
On 2/16/06, lars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Schultz wrote:
> > lars wrote:
> >> A long uptime means that the machine hasn't been rebooted for a long
> >> time. If that time's longer than the time to the last patch that
> >> required a kernel recompilation and a reboot, it means the server is
Eric Schultz wrote:
lars wrote:
A long uptime means that the machine hasn't been rebooted for a long
time. If that time's longer than the time to the last patch that
required a kernel recompilation and a reboot, it means the server is not
patched. Where's the point in advertising an unpatched ma
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
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
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
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% u
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
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
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
lars wrote:
A long uptime means that the machine hasn't been rebooted for a long
time. If that time's longer than the time to the last patch that
required a kernel recompilation and a reboot, it means the server is not
patched.
Where's the point in advertising an unpatched machine?
Good aftern
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 unst
Actually, in my case, I'm more interested in % uptime then long uptimes,
something that this site does keep track of ...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, lars wrote:
David Benfell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:01:33 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
FreeBSD is showing 4th place right
David Benfell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:01:33 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > FreeBSD is showing 4th place right now behind Linux, SunOS and Netware for
> > Average Uptimes ... with ours being an average of 120 days
> >
> Which shows yet again how utterly worthle
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:01:33 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> FreeBSD is showing 4th place right now behind Linux, SunOS and Netware for
> Average Uptimes ... with ours being an average of 120 days
>
Which shows yet again how utterly worthless this kind of rating is.
So here's the problem as
Always trying to find new tools to monitor our servers, I came across the
following a little while ago:
http://www.mreriksson.net/uptimes/intro
FreeBSD is showing 4th place right now behind Linux, SunOS and Netware for
Average Uptimes ... with ours being an average of 120 days ... so,
19 matches
Mail list logo
