Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:42:34 -0700 From: Patrick Calkins <pcalkins@oemsupport.com> To: 'Pedro Timoteo' <deh@meganet.pt>, "Freebsd-Advocacy (E-mail)" <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: top uptime! Message-ID: <9B9CB6555E6BA049BC2B857E7711C24F0239A4@puke.reno.oemsupport.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, true enough about the stability about the early 2.x, but is it possible to be running them in some sort of cluster so they could take them down to do kernel upgrades one-by-one without affecting the site up-time? Or is this the up-time of a single box?? -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Timoteo [mailto:deh@meganet.pt] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:30 AM To: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top uptime! On Friday 20 April 2001 18:25, you wrote: > I'm not saying that Linux is more stable (I know it isn't, I use both), but > in this case I don't think the stability of Linux is fairly shown here. Also (it's funny to reply to my own message), for a FreeBSD to have an uptime greater than 1000 days, it's got to be an early 2.x. So, this list shows nothing about the stability of 3.x or 4.x. I'm not *doubting* it's great, but we'll only have "proof" when in 3 or 4 years there are some 4.xs still running. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9B9CB6555E6BA049BC2B857E7711C24F0239A4>