+> >
+> > Can you tell me, what use rebooting is?
+>
+> new hardware, sometimes (keyword is sometimes not all the
+> time) you may need to reboot for changes in inetd configurations
+> to take effect.. /etc/hosts file changes, I have had to.. what
+> is your system doing?
+> how do you run fsck? can you unmount the system drive and
+> run fsck on it? And not reboot? If that is the case then rather
+> than reboot I'd do that once a week ..
You are naming the exceptions. A system is OK to reboot for the
following occasions:
- changes in the hardware
If you don't have a true HA-solution, replacing a cpu-board is considered
severe enough. - Maybe even adding some ethernet cards, or harddisk.
But if you *have* a HA-solution, these are NOT considered to be a reason
for a reboot.
- basic changes in the systems internals (as changes in the /etc/hosts)
(You may even change this in singleusermode...)
Going into singleusermode is not considered a reboot, since the systems
uptime keeps growing...
I don't consider a upgrade of any piece of software that does not
belong directly to the kernel as being a system internal. I.E. an
upgrade of an office-package should be no reason at all to reboot
the system. - In fact, where I work, we replaced (updated) the
complete Applixware-package overnight on all our customers workstations.
- Hasslefree, without any complains and not a single reboot!
- after a severe crash: Filesystemschecks - But you only need to go into
singleusermode for that! (Same goes for chancges in the /etc/hosts)
When you leave these rare and necessary occasions away, what is left?
Exact the situations, where NT falls over it's own bootstraps.
+> > At work (where I use Sun workstations) I have three machines
+> > (USER-Workstations!
+> > Where there are sitting users at the thing, logging in and out
+> > and crashing
+> > their applications all day long ;) ) - and these three
+> > machines have an
+> > uptime of far more than 280 days!!!!! (one is over 290 !)
+> >
+> does Suns filesystems need to be fsck'd?
Of course! - But only after a severe system crash. - Which I consider to be
an acceptable reason to make an fsck. ;-)
As long as you can manage to keep your system free of memmory leaks, zombies
and system crashes, there is no dire need for a fsck or reboot at all.
+> > Can anybody please show me *any* NT-User-WS with such uptime?
+> >
+>
+> okay now you are dreaming...
Why should I?
Why should I expect less from NT than from Solaris, when it's *THAT* great,
as M$ tries to suggest everybody and his uncle?
I'm sitting here with my real life experience and I'm still awaiting
M$ to come even a tiny bit closer to what I call a stable (which I call
*PROFESSIONAL*) system. - They don't get it. They haven't got it for years
now. - Even Linux was completely developed during the time M$ exists, so
M$ has a major advantage over Linux in this case. - Is NT more stable? - No.
Has it more features? - No. - Is it cheaper? - No. - Does it perform better?
- In most cases: No.
So why should I use NT?
Neutral analysts believe that NT contains 2.3 million bugs. *GULP*
And now comes Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0) - guess how many bugs...
The analysts guess it will be around 5 million bugs.
I won't dare say Linux is flawless, but I consider it to have a vast amount
of bugs less than 5 millions...
Just my 0.02 $
Best regards,
Herbert
"Why aren't our NT-people in this meeting?" - "We are talking here about systems
with which we have troubles when they are running NOT." Two of my coworkers in a
meeting about a scheduled powerdown for crucial servers of a major german bank.
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
