[ale] uptime?

[Jonathan Rickman]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Wandered Inn wrote:

> The point is, extended uptimes speaks of stability and robust kernel and
> application code.  One of the problems I believe NT has is memory
> leaks.  I used to have to run NT on my laptop, and it would just plain
> go brain dead after a while.

In the interest of getting a good flamewar started...

I actually have 2 NT4 SP4 boxen running WINS/DNS (internal only) that
have somehow managed to stay up since 04/21/2000. In contrast, a Samba
server running on identical hardware only lasted 4 months. After some
analysis on the box in question, I believe I've found a faulty power
supply feeding "dirty juice" to the Linux box. To make a long story
short...

Uptimes don't mean sh*t!!! 

I've seen HP-UX machines run for a year at a time, only to crash HARD 2
mos after the next reboot. I have friends in the military who run
NT4/Exchange 5.5 boxes that run for 6-8 months at a time without so much
as a hiccup. I've also seen Linux machines run for over a year. But I've
also seen Linux machines crash and burn. There are so many factors
involved in maintaining uptime that it's not worth attempting to compare
OS statistics. 

I'll have to say that it's been my experience that Linux/BSD systems do
seem to run longer. I've never personally seen a BSD box crash. However, I
think the hardware, system load, and configuration have much more to do
with it than the OS. There are plenty of things for us (Linux enthusiasts)
to brag about without resorting to using uptime statistics.

-- 
Jonathan Rickman
X Corps Security
http://www.xcorps.net


--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.