Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 May 1999 22:48:15 +0200 (MEST) | From | Ricardo Galli Granada <> | Subject | Re: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !! (fwd) |
| |
> More succinctly: "An enterprise server does not crash." > > Until NT attains a difficult-to-measure level of reliability, > its advocates would be wise to avoid mentioning it on the same > page with the word "enterprise".
sun:~$ w 10:24pm up 70 days, 1:31, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.02
sun:~$ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 127812 125636 2176 11932 38508 8784 -/+ buffers/cache: 78344 49468 Swap: 48380 92 48288
Just ask to NT fans for number like the previous ones in a old (3.5 years) Pentium 133, 2.0.36, running:
- Firewall, masquerading, and routing (three 100 mbps ethernet) - Squid - secondary DNS (40 domains) - secondary MX (40 domains) - NFS server (gateway to SMB) - SMB file server (Samba)
NOTE: Its uptime is *only* 70 days because I had to stop it to change an ethernet. Last 70 days included an whole upgrade (with no reboot) of libc, bin-utils, util-linux, nfsserver and nettools.
If you can get those numbers from a Windows NT, then let's follow the discussions...
Ooooh!!! They complain about stupid UNIX text interface. Did they try to add a static IP route using just the bogus "Advanced" TCP/IP control panel? Of course they can´t, they have to learn the "old fashioned" BSD like route command in a "modern" MS-DOS text interface...
Sorry, this is a stupid offtopic, but I cannot stand those people that talk about "Enterprise" and "Reliability" and they can not even maintain alive or configure a "really working" NT server for a couple of weeks (did they try?).
AWK!!!!
-- Ricardo Galli
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |