On Wednesday 21 November 2001 11:09 pm, you wrote:
> I work for a small retailer and run a mixed environment. Red Hat and win
> 98 we also have an NT server. I believe that the servers, yes both, have
> been up and running for more than 7 months each. No problems with either
> OS except their inherent deficentcies. Lack of applications on Linux and
> Viruses on Windows.
Nearly every patch I've applied in NT requires a reboot - killing uptime.
We've got some NT boxes that have good uptimes, but with the frequency of
patches I'd say none of them are over a couple months. I think the mail
server is the only one that hasn't been rebooted in 6 months (go rockliff
mailsite).
With me - win9x/NT have required fairly regular reboots, and proof that this
is not just me is the universal piece of advise to fix a microsoft box - have
you rebooted it? The ones that seem to have an uptime of more than a week
tend to only run one service. Unix boxes (solaris/linux/etc) that run
multiple services are known to stay up for literally years, and something
requiring a reboot is mainly due to hardware failure - not OS related. Heck,
the email/www/ftp/mud/icecast/dns server I've got has been up for nearly 300
days and there's not even a reboot in sight. In that time I've upgraded
nearly every component besides the kernel itself.
Now, win2k I've heard good things about uptime/stability wise, but haven't
had a reason to try it yet.
-dallas
>
> Charles Reynolds
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kimi A. Adams" <kimi@unitywave.com>
> To: <plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Woohoo!!!
>
> > Well, well. Now it just seems like someone's joy is someone's thorn. I
> > believe that having a Windows machine up more than three days is a feat
> > beyond having a Linux server up a whole year. But then again, I also get
>
> a
>
> > warm fuzzy when my machine doesn't perform some type of screw up on a
>
> daily
>
> > basis. Those .dll files can be quite a pain in the neck. So, I would
>
> like
>
> > to put this into perspective. If you have a server that hasn't crashed
> > or stopped working or been accidentally reformatted at least once, then I
> > congratulate you with my whole heart and being. But, on Windows, whether
> > it needs it or not, we start from scratch every few months. No
> > notification needed, definitely no crying required. But then again,
> > notifications can be quite a preempt to a larger problem at hand.
> > Wishing well to those that have made it more than three days............
> >
> > : )
> >
> > Kimi
> >
> > At 11/21/01, you wrote:
> > >Wooho? Would you (if you could) set up a 'at' command to
> > >do something like this:
> > >'uptime | mail -s "See how well we are doing!" cfo@yourcompany.com'
> > >
> > >Doesn't look so impressive at that point does it? :-)
> > >
> > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 09:19:53AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > > > Digital Wokan wrote:
> > > > > I didn't think Windows had an uptime command. (If they did, it was
> > > > > apparently so shamefully low, they removed it from Win2K.)
> > > > >
> > > > > George Toft wrote:
> > > > > >I am not bashing Microsoft, but in a fit of glory, I must share
> > > > > >my elation. I have nursed my Windows box along to record heights
> > > > > >in uptime:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >=============================================================
> > > > > >Microsoft(R) Windows 98
> > > > > > (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1981-1998.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >C:\WINDOWS>uptime
> > > > > > 00:41:07 up 6 days, 5:17, 1 user
> > > > > >C:\WINDOWS>
> > > > > >=============================================================
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > I get very good uptimes from Windows NT 4.0 / SP6a - so that is not a
> > > > big deal - Windows 98 isn't very impressive.
> > > >
> > > > There is a Micosoft Windows Diagnostic Tool on Win98SE that will
>
> report
>
> > > > these things like uptime.
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > > ________________________________________________
> > > > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail
>
> doesn't
>
> > > post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > >
> > > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> > >
> > >________________________________________________
> > >See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> > >post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > >
> > >PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > >http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
>
> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)