Atom Powers wrote:
It's still going to take you at least a release to get it into the
base install. But if you can find a way to use the portsnap data and
get useful information out of the cvsup data you can probably get
numbers now with an error margin as low as 8% to 15%.
Hey, I said that a week ago! Guess I agree with you :-)
Not quite convinced by the error margin, but as long as you count too
low then I see no problem. If, as Nikolas pointed out, a URL-based
reporting scheme can be bombarded with fakes, as a vendor I would not
want to listen to any numbers it produced.
But the question then goes back to: can you make any kind of count out
of cvsup servers? Someone already said they thought you couldn't.
At the end of the day, I think that unique IP address is as close as
it's possible to get to host count. It will undercount NATed hosts and
networks with single cvsup/portsnap distribution points, and will
overcount variable IP addresses. The latter, I think matters the least
as long as you do your stats over a short enough period (e.g. 1 month).
That wouldn't overcount much and deliberate faking would be hard and
limited (how many IP addresses can one faker get access to?).
Then, as long as the methodology is clearly explained along with any
stats, you'd have the ammunition to persuade vendors (we hope).
--Alex
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
