[NTLUG:Discuss] Uptimes

[Steve Jackson]

very good point.  Having to reboot to apply the patches does suck.  That's
why you might usually use 2 IIS servers instead of 1 apache server.
However, the ease of development for MS platforms, ASP out of the box, and
database connectivity make it a good platform for high complexity web apps
that get a minimal amount of traffic.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-admin at ntlug.org [mailto:discuss-admin at ntlug.org]On Behalf
Of Randall Gibson
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 9:34 PM
To: discuss at ntlug.org
Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] Uptimes


I assume that means you havent been doing your updates. Of course since it
is a internal server, updates wouldnt be as critical as on your real web
server.
Untill M$ makes it possible to do a patch for a security hole, and not
require a re-boot afterwards, I dont see how anyone could really consider
it a good server.

Randall Gibson.

On 2001.07.21 11:44 sjackson wrote:
> Those are pretty impressive numbers.
>
> Sometimes M$ will surprise you though.  Here's the uptime for my Windows
> 2000 Server running IIS5 with 10 internal test-bed/development websites,
> a
> network file server for 5GB of data, test-bed for COM component
> development
> and deployment.  It's a dual P3-550.
>
> C:\Documents and Settings\developer\Desktop>C:\uptime.exe
> \\ISONE has been up for: 157 day(s), 20 hour(s), 56 minute(s), 15
> second(s)
>
>
> Greg Edwards wrote:
> >
> > Just wanted to pass along some numbers that M$ would love to be able to
> > brag about:)  I've got 3 systems, 1 workstation and 2 servers, that
> I'll
> > be doing an upgrade to next week so my uptimes will get reset.  All 3
> of
> > these are running Mandrake 7.1 and I'll be going to Mandrake 8.0.
> >
> >   Athlon K7 Workstation   7:28pm  up 188 days,  3:37
> >   Cyrix PR200 Web server  7:29pm  up 62 days, 20:37
> >   AMD K6-2 Network server 7:30pm  up 226 days, 20:45
> >
> > The Web server had a memory upgrade that was done 2 months ago,
> > otherwise it would be in the same extended uptime as the others.
>
> Those are pretty good times - I've seen similar (although the lack
> of an UPS on our systems tends to limit their uptimes to a couple
> of months).
>
> What I find most impressive is not so much server uptimes but desktop
> machines
> used for software development.  A server runs a relatively small range
> of packages in a fairly repetitive way - and hence the individual
> programs
> tend to be reliable and don't stress the OS too much.
>
> But when you see a machine that's been used for developing software with
> an uptime in the hundred day plus mark, that's more impressive because
> the OS has had to tolerate programs crashing and generally misbehaving
> in a wide range of "creative" ways.  Back in the bad old days when I
> worked with people who had to develop under NT, a flakey program would
> have about a 50:50 chance of taking the OS down with it - or even worse,
> making the system liable to crash halfware through the next edit/compile
> cycle.
>
> ----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
> HomeMail : <sjbaker1 at airmail.net>   WorkMail: <sjbaker at link.com>
> HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
> Projects : http://plib.sf.net     http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
> http://tuxkart.sf.net
>            http://agtoys.sf.net   http://prettypoly.sf.net
>            http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss