Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50 - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50 - Linux ; http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

  1. Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50


  2. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    DFS wrote:

    > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html


    Uptime for the vast majority of Linux systems will never show up in these
    lists, for one or more of the following reasons (from Netcraft's FAQ):

    "Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
    ...
    * Linux on Intel x86 processor from kernel version 2.5.25 (see below)
    ...

    Why do some Operating Systems never show uptimes above 497 days ?

    The method that Netcraft uses to determine the uptime of a server is
    bounded by an upper limit of 497 days for some Operating Systems (see
    above).

    Why does my uptime go back to 0 after 198 days ?

    The Linux TCP stack uses the low 32 bits from the system uptime timer, and
    this timer, in recent kernel releases, runs at 250Hz. This means that the
    timer value wraps around to 0 after roughly 198 days. ...

    Why do you not report uptimes for Linux 2.6 or FreeBSD 6 ?

    We only report uptimes for systems where the operating system's timer runs
    at 100Hz or less. ... The Linux kernel switched to a higher internal timer
    rate at kernel version 2.5.26. ..."


    So, you were trying to convey what message exactly?

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  3. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    > DFS wrote:

    [nothing]

    > So, you were trying to convey what message exactly?


    The usual: That he's an uninformed moron.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._. :*~*:.
    .. .
    .. "Remember, if Christmas isn't found in your heart, .
    .. you won't find it under a tree." ~ C. Carpenter .
    .. .
    .. Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year .
    .. .
    ..:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._. :*~*:.


    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    21:19:16 up 11 days, 18:55, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.02, 0.00

  4. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html


    "For performance reasons, we limit this monitoring process to the
    most frequently requested sites."

    Also, those uptimes are pretyy massive, so even at 100th place, Linux
    might be looking pretty good.

    In any case, there's a lot of provisos:

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html

    Here's one:

    The site load shares across multiple servers using different
    operating systems with round robin DNS. In such cases each query
    might detect a different operating system.

    Here's another:

    We made a mistake. If you see an operating system & web server
    combination reported that you know to be wrong, please e-mail us.

    And, finally:

    Why does my uptime go back to 0 after 198 days ?

    The Linux TCP stack uses the low 32 bits from the system uptime
    timer, and this timer, in recent kernel releases, runs at 250Hz. This
    means that the timer value wraps around to 0 after roughly 198 days.
    Although we could in theory attempt to compute the true uptime for
    OS's with this upper limit by monitoring for restarts at the expected
    time, we prefer not to do this as it can be error prone.

    Why do you not report uptimes for Linux 2.6 or FreeBSD 6 ?

    We only report uptimes for systems where the operating system's timer
    runs at 100Hz or less. Because the TCP code only uses the low 32 bits
    of the timer, if the timer runs at say 1000Hz, the value wraps around
    every 49.7 days (whereas at 100Hz it wraps after 497 days). As there
    are large numbers of systems which have a higher uptime than this, it
    is not possible to report accurate uptimes for these systems.

    The Linux kernel switched to a higher internal timer rate at kernel
    version 2.5.26. Linux 2.4 used a rate of 100Hz. Linux 2.6 used a
    timer at 1000Hz (some architectures were using 1000Hz before this),
    until the default was changed back to 250Hz in May 2006.

    FreeBSD versions 4 and 5 used a 100Hz timer, but FreeBSD 6 has moved
    to a customisable timer with a default setting of 1000Hz.

    So unfortunately this means that we cannot give reliable uptime
    ================================================== =============
    figures for many Linux and FreeBSD servers.
    ===========================================

    In other words, Netcraft cannot provide uptimes for the latest versions
    of Linux AND FreeBSD.

    Moral:

    Read the fine print.

    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

  5. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    * [H]omer fired off this tart reply:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >> DFS wrote:

    > [nothing]
    >
    >> So, you were trying to convey what message exactly?

    >
    > The usual: That he's an uninformed moron.


    Here's picture of DFS and Hadron (ignore its caption):

    http://home.kc.rr.com/snidely/cornscolio.gif

    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

  6. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html



    > So, you were trying to convey what message exactly?


    That no Linux systems were represented in the Top 50 on the Netcraft site.
    And they're not. I guess cola bozos expect everyone to just believe in huge
    Linux uptime numbers - though there's little to no 3rd party proof.




  7. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    Linonut wrote:
    > * DFS fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

    >
    > "For performance reasons, we limit this monitoring process to the
    > most frequently requested sites."
    >
    > Also, those uptimes are pretyy massive, so even at 100th place, Linux
    > might be looking pretty good.


    Windows is looking better.



    > In other words, Netcraft cannot provide uptimes for the latest
    > versions of Linux AND FreeBSD.


    Such a shame. They can for Windows, and it rocks.



    > Moral:
    >
    > Read the fine print.


    The fine print excuses some Linux systems, but the dissembling going on here
    (expected of course) is kind of pathetic, and if you place as much faith in
    the faq excuses as you seem to, it means not a single

    a.. Linux on Intel x86 processor, kernel versions 2.1 to 2.5.24
    a.. Linux on ARM, M68k, MIPS, PowerPC, S/390, SH and SPARC processors

    system they monitor has uptime greater than Windows Server 2003. But cola
    idiots claim over and over and over that Windows crashes and has to be
    rebooted all the time? I'm confused.




  8. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:02:48 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > Moral:
    >
    > Read the fine print.


    That never got in the way of DFS before.


  9. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    DFS wrote:

    > Windows is looking better.


    Only to Winidiots like you.

  10. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    DFS wrote:
    >
    > That no Linux systems were represented in the Top 50 on the Netcraft site.
    > And they're not. I guess cola bozos expect everyone to just believe in huge
    > Linux uptime numbers - though there's little to no 3rd party proof.


    I've had a Linux server with a better than 4 year uptime, though
    generally I recommend upgrading your kernel (which requires a
    reboot) more frequently than that. Of course the counter rolled
    over before then, so I couldn't *prove* that uptime even if I
    wanted to. Doesn't matter. Experienced admins know the truth
    based on real world experience and pick their systems accordingly.
    It is no accident Linux is the preferred platform in the ISP
    industry.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  11. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    DFS wrote:
    >
    > The fine print excuses some Linux systems, but the dissembling going on here
    > (expected of course) is kind of pathetic, and if you place as much faith in
    > the faq excuses as you seem to, it means not a single
    >
    > a.. Linux on Intel x86 processor, kernel versions 2.1 to 2.5.24
    > a.. Linux on ARM, M68k, MIPS, PowerPC, S/390, SH and SPARC processors
    >
    > system they monitor has uptime greater than Windows Server 2003. But cola
    > idiots claim over and over and over that Windows crashes and has to be
    > rebooted all the time? I'm confused.


    It means Linux system can not be monitored using the methodology
    employed by Netcraft. It says nothing about actual uptimes.

    Here is a thought to start some conspiracy theories / rumors:
    Netcraft uses counters in the network packet headers to record
    uptimes (counters that roll over faster in Linux due to tighter
    clock granularity). How tough would it be to modify the Windows
    kernel to checkpoint that value and resume where it left off
    after a reboot? Wouldn't MS have an incentive to do just that to
    boost their netcraft uptime ratings? They certainly could not do
    it on the publicly released versions of their software (they
    would get caught if they did that), but they could get away with
    it on a few of their own servers or that of a few key partners.

    I am not saying they are doing it... just wondering aloud. >

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  12. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    [H]omer wrote:

    >Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >
    >> Here's picture of DFS and Hadron (ignore its caption):
    >>
    >> http://home.kc.rr.com/snidely/cornscolio.gif

    >
    >You give them too much credit, Beavis and Butthead are angelic little
    >geniuses by comparison.
    >
    >This is more like DooFy:
    >
    >http://www.wired.com/news/images/ful...as_005kn_f.jpg
    >
    >And Hardon:
    >
    >http://m.blog.hu/li/lightscience/ima...IL-ID-1181.jpg


    8) Close, but I think this one fits Quack better:

    http://www.liquidass.com/images/dog_poo_close-up.JPG


  13. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut wrote:
    > system they monitor has uptime greater than Windows Server 2003. But cola
    > idiots claim over and over and over that Windows crashes and has to be
    > rebooted all the time? I'm confused.


    That is quite obvious. What a waste of time showing you the reading
    material.

    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

  14. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    Linonut wrote:

    >> I'm confused.

    >
    >That is quite obvious. What a waste of time showing you the reading
    >material.


    I'm certain he's spewed the same idiocy, and been corrected on it, in
    the past. It was a waste of time then, and it will be again in the
    future.


  15. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    * chrisv fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm confused.

    >>
    >>That is quite obvious. What a waste of time showing you the reading
    >>material.

    >
    > I'm certain he's spewed the same idiocy, and been corrected on it, in
    > the past. It was a waste of time then, and it will be again in the
    > future.




    Why cain't ah quit him?



    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

  16. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    Linonut wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > Why cain't ah quit him?
    >
    >



    http://angryalien.com/aa/brokebackbuns.asp

  17. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:37:00 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html


    Don't you have anything better to do then come here and make an ass of
    yourself?

  18. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    On Tuesday 01 Jan 2008 20:37 DFS licked a pencil and jotted:

    > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html


    Twat. What do you expect you moron.

    "Additionally HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, 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."


    --
    Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we
    can find information upon it. (Samuel Johnson)
    Only the mediocre are always at their best. (Jean Giraudoux)
    (Reply address genuine - Checked occasionally)

  19. Re: Linux uptime: not even in the Top 50

    bob wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:37:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

    >
    > Don't you have anything better to do then come here and make an ass of
    > yourself?


    Don't fret, bob. So virtually nobody uses or likes Linux? Doesn't mean
    they don't use or like you.




+ Reply to Thread