Date: 05 Jan 2003 01:11:46 +0000 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <1041729106.17746.145.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <20030104144157.GA485@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <200212170023.gBH0Nvlu000764@beast.csl.sri.com> <20030103000232.GA52181@blazingdot.com> <Pine.GSO.4.51.0301021738490.19685@xmission.xmission.com> <20030103062708.GA426@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il> <20030103154323.GA454@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <1041659893.9975.179.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> <20030104144157.GA485@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 14:41, Thomas Seck wrote:
> * Wes Peters (wes@softweyr.com):
>
> > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:43, Thomas Seck wrote:
>
> > > * Nimrod Mesika (nimrod-me@bezeqint.net):
> > >
> > > > And uptimes are not important. Downtimes *are*.
> > >
> > > Yes. Especially the unscheduled ones.
> >
> > Don't be silly, uptimes are terribly important when they're not long
> > enough to be useful. They're no longer important when they've gotten
> > long enough to last between system upgrades, which FreeBSD and a number
> > of other systems are regularly capable of these days.
>
> You are over interpreting my message.
No, just taking it at face value. C'mon, look at the statement and
admit it was absurd: "uptimes are not important." ;^)
> Tell me: what is the maximum uptime one can achieve when following all
> FreeBSD security advisories which involve loading a new kernel due to
> locally or remotely exploitable kernel vulnerabilities?
Shorter that the uptimes attainable with most recent 4.x releases, and
longer than the uptimes attainable with 5.0 right now.
Oh, you want numbers? OK, I'll take a wild stab at not more than 6-8
months, which is nowhere near the 1000+ days being reported by Netcraft,
but it certainly non-zero as well. And yes, there are systems available
now still not able to run for months at a time.
> > I remember people being mightily impressed with VAX/VMS systems being
> > able to stay up for 30 days at a time. I also more recently recall
> > system administrators being very disappointed by Windows NT servers
> > because they couldn't stay up for 6 days at a time and they had NO time
> > in their schedule when the machines could be rebooted without disrupting
> > workflow between 0400 Monday and 0400 Saturday.
>
> Well, I our NT servers did not BSOD on us for years now. What does this
> say about NT stability? Right, nothing. The only downtimes we see here
> are the scheduled ones. I want it to stay that way.
>
> Too many people try to squeeze advocacy out of every figure they see
> somewhere. I don't.
Too much motorcyle mentality. Ever ride a first generation Honda CBX?
On paper, they looked great. 6 cylinders, more moving parts than a
space shuttle, broad flat powerband. In reality, those extra two
cylinders tended to cook your legs, it was top-heavy and unweildy, and
the frame was far too flexible for the power of the bike. Good specs,
lousy integration.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1041729106.17746.145.camel>