Re: [Zope] OT:NT and rebooting (was:How many houres do I need to manage a Zope) site?
sorry if this is offtopic, but i see reference of rebooting every so often with NT( and maybe W2K). is this real? or FUD? i use linux myself and would like to confirm this from all you guys' experience
Do I miss important tasks? Has anybody done this before?
Yeah.. rebooting NT every 4 days. :)
J
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[...] To: trimmed to zope.org On 25 Oct 2000, 23:49 Bak @ kedai wrote:
sorry if this is offtopic, but i see reference of rebooting every so often with NT( and maybe W2K). is this real? or FUD? i use linux myself and would like to confirm this from all you guys' experience
It's FUD. I'M running Zope on two NT servers here, which run many months between reboots. I just checked - the Zope on the intranet server has an uptime of 34 days 8 hours 32 min 3 sec now. This tells us that I installed Zope 2.2.2 three days after it was released on www.zope.org. :-)
Do I miss important tasks? Has anybody done this before?
Yeah.. rebooting NT every 4 days. :)
-- o ( Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394 /\ * GMD mbH #include _`\ `_<=== Schloss Birlinghoven, <std.disclaimer> __(_)/_(_)___.-._ 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany ________________
"Months without rebooting"? That is certainly not something to brag about. With three of my installations of Zope on Linux I have the machines at 194, 204 and 55 days of uptime (and the 55 was because of a bad powerstrip, the other others have been up since I brought them up). While NT can and does stay up for long periods of time, it still is a very poor server choice as anything you install leads to a reboot. I have installed countless things on the Linux boxes and never brought it down. That is the difference and makes all the difference when it comes to a website. J
From: "Wolfgang Strobl" <ws@gmd.de> Organization: GMD Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:13:32 +0200 To: zope@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope] OT:NT and rebooting
[...] To: trimmed to zope.org
On 25 Oct 2000, 23:49 Bak @ kedai wrote:
sorry if this is offtopic, but i see reference of rebooting every so often with NT( and maybe W2K). is this real? or FUD? i use linux myself and would like to confirm this from all you guys' experience
It's FUD. I'M running Zope on two NT servers here, which run many months between reboots. I just checked - the Zope on the intranet server has an uptime of 34 days 8 hours 32 min 3 sec now.
This tells us that I installed Zope 2.2.2 three days after it was released on www.zope.org. :-)
Do I miss important tasks? Has anybody done this before?
Yeah.. rebooting NT every 4 days. :)
-- o ( Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394 /\ * GMD mbH #include _`\ `_<=== Schloss Birlinghoven, <std.disclaimer> __(_)/_(_)___.-._ 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany ________________
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
"Months without rebooting"?
That is certainly not something to brag about. With three of my installations of Zope on Linux I have the machines at 194, 204 and 55 days of uptime (and the 55 was because of a bad powerstrip, the other others have been up since I brought them up). While NT can and does stay up for long periods of time, it still is a very poor server choice as anything you install leads to a reboot. I have installed countless things on the Linux boxes and never brought it down. That is the difference and makes all the difference when it comes to a website.
Agreed, but that wasn't the point Rik
On 25 Oct 2000, at 16:00, J. Atwood wrote:
"Months without rebooting"?
That is certainly not something to brag about.
Huh? Did anybody? Certainly not me. :-{ In case I didn't make myself clear: for running Zope; I don't care much whether the OS needs a reboot every month, every year, or every decade, when I have to upgrade and/or restart Zope for installing Hotfixes and/or new products, every other month, anyway.
With three of my installations of Zope on Linux I have the machines at 194, 204 and 55 days of uptime (and the 55 was because of a bad powerstrip, the other others have been up since I brought them up).
So what. I'm using an old 3.51 server on one of my companies intranets here, serving as a backup domain controller plus a few other, less important services, which is running for about half a year now (power failure in the machine room, too). That machine has begun life as a OS/2 Lanmanager server (ca '90), and has been upgraded almost seamlessly again and again, both in hardware and in software, since.
While NT can and does stay up for long periods of time, it still is a very poor server choice as anything you install leads to a reboot.
Well, W2K certainly has more capabilities here, and Linux, for example, is somewhat better in some (!) areas, but "anything" is a gross exaggeration.
I have installed countless things on the Linux boxes and never brought it down. That is the difference and makes all the difference when it comes to a website.
The vagueness of the first statement doesn't justify your conclusing, IMHO. But to each his own.
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
On 25 Oct 2000, at 16:00, J. Atwood wrote:
"Months without rebooting"?
That is certainly not something to brag about.
Huh? Did anybody? Certainly not me. :-{
In case I didn't make myself clear: for running Zope; I don't care much whether the OS needs a reboot every month, every year, or every decade, when I have to upgrade and/or restart Zope for installing Hotfixes and/or new products, every other month, anyway.
OK, tim e fo rme to weigh in on this. Reboot frequency is a matter of experience and perspective. If you are used to uptimes measured in years, or 'always on' environments, then NT's uptime rates are abject failures. That's not a slight, it is a statement of fact that even Mr. Gates himself agrees with and understands. If, on the other hand, you don't come from that background or need, and are not used to that type of environment, a few months to six months to nearly a year can mean something to you. So, this is *one* of the reasons we see these arguments about uptime from both sides of the windows vs everything else uptime wars. Some measure days, some months, and otehrs measure in terms of years.
With three of my installations of Zope on Linux I have the machines at 194, 204 and 55 days of uptime (and the 55 was because of a bad powerstrip, the other others have been up since I brought them up).
So what. I'm using an old 3.51 server on one of my companies intranets here, serving as a backup domain controller plus a few other, less important services, which is running for about half a year now (power failure in the machine room, too). That machine has begun life as a OS/2 Lanmanager server (ca '90), and has been upgraded almost seamlessly again and again, both in hardware and in software, since.
And has been rebooted to perfrom those upgrades (software, the hardware is obvious), has it not?
While NT can and does stay up for long periods of time, it still is a very poor server choice as anything you install leads to a reboot.
Well, W2K certainly has more capabilities here, and Linux, for example, is somewhat better in some (!) areas, but "anything" is a gross exaggeration.
While I agree that 'anything' is a poor choice of words, unless you are changing kernels and/or glibc, Linux does not require a reboot for install of any software (that I am aware of, and that is a high amount of software mind you). There is work in progress to alleviate that as well. Not quickly, as it is a rather complex undertaking, but it is ongoing. IIRC, kernel 2.4 will/does have support for hot swappable PCI devices on hardware that has it (yes, you can get Intel-compat hardware with that). Last I checked, if you try to hot-swap a keyboard or mouse, all versions minus 2k (haven't tried it there), will die. As far as 'lack of need to reboot' goes when concerning upgrades, Linux wins hands down.. So, the question regarding uptime is more a question of needs. Some of us need 24x7 availablility, and 5 nines. Some do not. For those of us needing 5 nines, we can use Unix/Linux to provide that. If you don't need it (and not everyone does), use other criteria more appropriate to your needs. -- E PLURIBUS LINUX
On 25 Oct 2000, at 16:50, Bill Anderson wrote:
OK, tim e fo rme to weigh in on this. Reboot frequency is a matter of experience and perspective.
I don't believe that broadening the discussion along these lines will serve this mailing list in any way, so I refrain from commenting on most of these statements. Just let me remark that I dislike marketing gibberish independed of the origin it comes from. I made my point, i.e. as long as Zope isn't up to serving as a single-instance long time server anyway, who cares about the underlying OS. It might be hard to comprehend for some, but this statement doesn't say anything about how I value uptime rates. [...]
If, on the other hand, you don't come from that background or need, and are not used to that type of environment, a few months to six months to nearly a year can mean something to you.
Well, I still remember the times when my companies large IBM mainframe had to be IPLed for hardware maintenance, after running literally for years, while our Unix based workstations and servers celebrated their crashes almost daily. In these times, I had to relink the kernel and to reinstall the OS, in order to add a lousy floppy drive or some memory to my Unix workstation. Eeek. The statelessness of NFS, for example, came for a reason, you know. -- Wolfgang Strobl
From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of
It's FUD. I'M running Zope on two NT servers here, which run many months between reboots. I just checked - the Zope on the intranet server has an uptime of 34 days 8 hours 32 min 3 sec now.
I must say that I agree. All in all for my current needs, NT is a better choice than Linux. Better user interface and reasonable software uptime. I am slowly migrating to Linux though. As I really do believe the open source philosophy is better. But like Zope it is a b**** of a learning curve. Something like Zope shows it in a smaller scale. I would be willing to start a business on Zope technology because coorporation on the toolset is the smartest thing for service companies to do, and this is not a closed source option. I have tried some of the closed source application servers and they are so poor. Funnily enough I see companies reinventing the weel with these application servers, doing a lousy job every time. Zope is still not great, but lightyears ahead of anything else I have experienced. Being a web house and not doing an open source app server is so futile. Furthermore the new KDE2.0 looks really sexy. Just gotta finish one more project then I will upgrade from my old KDE1.0. Max M
participants (7)
-
Bak ＠ kedai -
Bill Anderson -
J. Atwood -
Max M -
Rik Hoekstra -
Wolfgang Strobl -
Wolfgang Strobl