>> - The Top 10 Servers (scores close to 20) > It wouldn't be very exciting. There are nearly 1400 servers in the > pool, and I suspect several hundred of those have a perfect 20 at any > one time. You'd have to add a couple of decimals and average the > scores over a longer period of time to be able to make any kind of > distinction.
Yeah. If my server is typical (and I have no reason to think it isn't), nearly half the servers are at 20 at any given time. At least, going as far back as I have data, my server has been at 20 for 5273 samples out of 11782. (There are some samples missing, though; I was recently cut off for a little over 24 hours and missed some data as a result, and haven't yet dug out how to get historical data farther back. I feel sure I have the info somewhere, just not where I can lay hands on it trivially.) >> Also (and some people will probably NOT like this), but I think it >> would be very cool if the 'monitors' could also should how many >> peers your server is serving, etc. > I doubt this is practically feasible. I'm inclined to agree. It'd be hard for *me* to tell how many peers my server is serving (I'd have to snoop the traffic and then try to tell the difference between a long poll interval and a peer going away and coming back, at an absolute minimum); I don't think the automated monitoring stands any real chance. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
