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

>: 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.

>: 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.

Of course, power failures, maint, and new feature adds that require reboot do not count. There isn't an NT server running anywhere in the world that can touch UNIX or some of the mainframes for uptime. Compaq sells a support package that assures less then 5 minutes a year of downtime. I believe HP and IBM have similar packages. Can you imagine M$ doing the same? I can see it now - we promise uptime of > 345 days a year, gulping deep all the while...

>: 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.

From a sys mgt point of view, if I get stuck because of a mounted server is down, then I'm down regardless of the reason. Users don't want excuses they want unfettered access. Sys Mgt is a thankless job, forget secretaries week, we need a Sys Mgt week!

w Received on Wed Apr 28 1999 - 13:45:38 CEST