Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:3da68457$0$1292$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> "Jim Stern" <jdstern_at_k2services.com> wrote in message
> news:ao52s5$fdl$1_at_news.utelfla.com...
> > Damn right... NT is definitely a no no for real critical applications,
too
> > many variables for the O/S to be stable.
>
> Are you sure this isn't just a knee jerk response. We have 2000 servers
> running line of business apps that have been up for (checks uptime) 118
> days. The downtime was for power work. Setup correctly windows 2000 *is* a
> stable OS. Now I'm not suggesting that we move apps supporting 10,000
users
> across to win2k from Solaris or HPUX or whatever, but windows is now a
> perfectly satisfactory server operating system. Moreover in this
particular
> case the application appears to be a single table app storing logs or
stats
> or some such.
>

Yup. Frankly, I'm getting bored with the "Micro$oft" and "Windoze" crap.

My home server (2000) has been up for 221 days. It would have been more, but the previous 119 days were interrupted by a thunderstorm knocking out the power. One UPS later, and all is well. Even my XP desktop, which gets punishment aplenty and all manner of freeware installs, deinstalls and anything in between, has been up for 54 days.

This myth that Windows is unstable is just that: myth. These days. But even so, I remember my NT4 servers at a large Insurance company running for three months at a time without interruption, except when I wanted to bounce them for service pack or backup issues.

I blame the installers. Not the software.

Regards
HJR
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> *****************************************
> Please include version and platform
> and SQL where applicable
> It makes life easier and increases the
> likelihood of a good answer
>
> ******************************************
>
>
Received on Fri Oct 11 2002 - 03:11:43 CDT