Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:59:27 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: Timekeeping [Was: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vmstat vmstat.c src/usr.bin/w w.c] Message-ID: <p0623090cbf7ef7edf7ee@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <4359216B.68A42960@networx.ch> References: <30805.1129910750@critter.freebsd.dk> <0D10B55A-A82D-433F-81CA-A5A02B36DA75@xcllnt.net> <4359216B.68A42960@networx.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 7:12 PM +0200 10/21/05, Andre Oppermann wrote: >Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > > The question therefore is: which definition of uptime do we > > try to implement? > >The question is "up and running" since when? Since the last >interruption (suspend or ddb) or since the last initialization >of the kernel (boot or reboot)? IMO the latter minus the former >in SI seconds. For what it is worth, I think both of those measures might be useful for people to know. If both are to be available, I think I would call uptime "the time since the most-recent system initialization", and call the other value something like "waketime". I don't have a strong preference for the specific names to use, but I do think both values can be valuable. So pick one as uptime, and pick a new name for the second one, and add an option to the `uptime' command to report both values. IMO. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0623090cbf7ef7edf7ee>