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't get it to run for more than a
week without it developing _some_ problem.
Mind you, on both of these systems, nobody is doing any development/kernel
hacking/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 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 large cluster. Thanks in advance.
>
> MTBF is something that says shit. depends on hardware, what the machine
> does, if it has a UPS, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>
> This machine is running 2 years without problems.
>
> > Jim Garlick
>
>
> Igmar
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- Matthew Dharm Home: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage DriverM: No, Windows doesn't have any nag screens. C: Then what are those blue and white screens I get every day? -- Mike and Cobb User Friendly, 1/4/1999 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST