> > We ran 1.2.13lmp for about 1100 days before the box finally got
> > turned off - twice around the uptime clock and more
> That's must be some kind of unofficial record... I though 400+ days
> was pretty neat, but 1100 says is really impressive, especially on a
> kernel which has races with jif
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Alpha and SMP are both things that seem to reduce your MTBF ..
>
Not to start an architecture war or anything like that, but I've had uni
and smp alpha linux boxes stay up under moderate to heavy loads for
nearly twice as long as any x86 box. All of them, both alpha and x
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> I agree that the MTBF can be very misleading...
>
> But put it this way: My server ran 2.2.14 for over 400 days before I
> rebooted it. It was down for about 5 minutes while rebooting (probably
> less).
>
> My NT Server gets a nightly reboot. I can'
> That's must be some kind of unofficial record... I though 400+ days
> was pretty neat, but 1100 says is really impressive, especially on a
> kernel which has races with jiffie wraps...
It did one job, for several years. Thats when boxes tend to be very stable.
Its also a statistical anomaly
-
From: "Chris Wedgwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We ran 1.2.13lmp for about 1100 days before the box finally got
> turned off - twice around the uptime clock and more
>
> That's must be some kind of unofficial record... I though 400+ days
> was pretty neat,
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Jim Garlick wrote:
> Can someone point me to MTBF data for Linux? I realize this is kind of
> vague. Ideally I would like MTBF for kernel 2.2.14 running on SMP Alpha,
> but any data is better than nothing. This is to help win an argument to
> put linux on a l
> > Can someone point me to MTBF data for Linux? I realize this is kind of
> > vague. Ideally I would like MTBF for kernel 2.2.14 running on SMP Alpha,
> > but any data is better than nothing. This is to help win an argument to
> > put linux on a large cluster. Tha
> I'm sure there must be boxes with kernel 1.2.13 out there
> that have been running since 1.2.13 came out...
We ran 1.2.13lmp for about 1100 days before the box finally got turned off -
twice around the uptime clock and more
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kern
On 1 Sep, Jim Garlick wrote:
> Can someone point me to MTBF data for Linux? I realize this is kind of
> vague. Ideally I would like MTBF for kernel 2.2.14 running on SMP Alpha,
> but any data is better than nothing. This is to help win an argument to
> put linux on a large clus
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> Whoops! Think-o. I meant I'm running 2.2.5 for over 400 days.
I'm sure there must be boxes with kernel 1.2.13 out there
that have been running since 1.2.13 came out...
(however, that doesn't mean I would recommend that kernel
to anyone)
regards,
Ri
ng/anything. They're just mail/www/ftp/dns/login (for linux) servers.
> To a first order approximation, they're basically the same hardware, both
> protected by a UPS.
>
> Matt
>
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 10:38:54PM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> > On Fri, 1
01, 2000 at 10:38:54PM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Jim Garlick wrote:
>
> > Can someone point me to MTBF data for Linux? I realize this is kind of
> > vague. Ideally I would like MTBF for kernel 2.2.14 running on SMP Alpha,
> > but any data is be
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Jim Garlick wrote:
> Can someone point me to MTBF data for Linux? I realize this is kind of
> vague. Ideally I would like MTBF for kernel 2.2.14 running on SMP Alpha,
> but any data is better than nothing. This is to help win an argument to
> put linux on a l
Can someone point me to MTBF data for Linux? I realize this is kind of
vague. Ideally I would like MTBF for kernel 2.2.14 running on SMP Alpha,
but any data is better than nothing. This is to help win an argument to
put linux on a large cluster. Thanks in advance.
Jim Garlick
-
To
14 matches
Mail list logo
