Re: More benchmark bullshit, and Linux luser mating calls... (was Re: Linux betas NT in TPC testing, running Oracle8

Leslie Mikesell <les_at_MCS.COM> wrote:

: In article <7g55ts$sqh$2_at_nnrp03.primenet.com>,
: Stephen Edwards <ja207030_at_primenet.com> wrote:
: >
: >Whether or not one needs to reboot a server for changes has _ZERO_ bearing
: >on its stability. Stability is an issue of how good the hardware and the
: >drivers using that hardware are.
: >
: >[] "No footnote for you!" -- Footnote Nazi
: >--
: >.-----.

: Downtime is downtime. Stability means running. I take it you haven't

No. Stability means that the operating system doesn't crash. Just because I reboot an OS, doesn't make it unstable. If I have to boot SCO UNIX 3 or four times in one month, that means "it has to be rebooted to relink the kernel because I added stuff to it, etc.", not "it's unstable." What you're saying does not make any sense.

: acually tried to keep a server running around the clock for a large group

All too often.

: of people with changing needs yet. It doesn't generally matter
: to them why the server isn't running.

So, you're saying that the definition of stability == that of what the lusers perceive?... scary.

[] "No footnote for you!" -- Footnote Nazi

--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "But something's wrong.  It takes me a moment to pin it down;
|     |  the monitor's different.  Instead of the nice 17' Trinitron,
|_..._|  there's a 15' raster gun in a dirty plastic case." -- Ben in ASR