Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 02:47:10 -0600 From: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net> To: Doug Young <dougy@gargoyle.apana.org.au> Cc: lhsmith@cfl.rr.com, Jesper Holmberg <jeho5791@student.uu.se>, freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG, b.j.smith@ieee.org, thebs@theseus.com, "Denis J. Cirulis" <monster@okb.lv> Subject: Re: About Unix <- Doug needs a good rebuking Message-ID: <3AA8988E.A3BBB7DA@confusion.net> References: <OFA420CC63.6AEAEDB6-ON87256A08.006994B1@smed.com> <01030800251100.00557@r55h47.res.gatech.edu> <20010308115639.A4298@strindberg.maisel.enst-bretagne.fr> <022801c0a7c0$024f8860$847e03cb@apana.org.au> <3AA79277.32455314@cfl.rr.com> <028b01c0a7e2$3ff2d420$847e03cb@apana.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm not going to really get involved with this, but let me share a little anecdotal evidence. A few times, just to see what would happen, I pulled the power cord for a power strip that contained not one, not two, not three, but ten Linux servers. Nine came up without problems. The tenth needed a little help with the fsck. I've done this sort of thing more than once, and I'd rate 1 in 10 as a reasonable rate. Never did I need to reinstall. FreeBSD had better results, 1 in 100 or so. Also, no reinstalls. Both systems may need a reinstall on very very rare occasions, so rare I've never seen it happen. You'd have to hose the system very badly. It's all pretty reliable. Let's not become the FUD spreaders here. Needing sleep, writing papers at 3 am, wishing I wasnt, Laurence http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/~laurence Doug Young wrote: > > My point remains .... our FreeBSD systems invariably recover after a power > failure, the previous linux ones rarely did. Given the difficulty in getting > to the remote systems thats more than sufficient justification for the move > from linux to FreeBSD. We'd never consider running any form of Windows on > remote systems ... we do have some Win2000 boxes but they are all kept close > to home where they can get a hug when needed. In comparison the FreeSD boxes > typically run for about a year before upgrade, the linux ones lasted maybe > two months at best, and the (local) Win2000 systems probably get 6 months > between re-installs. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lourdes H. Smith" <lhsmith@cfl.rr.com> > To: "Doug Young" <dougy@gargoyle.apana.org.au> > Cc: "Jesper Holmberg" <jeho5791@student.uu.se>; > <freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG>; <b.j.smith@ieee.org>; <thebs@theseus.com>; > "Denis J. Cirulis" <monster@okb.lv> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:08 AM > Subject: Re: About Unix <- Doug needs a good rebuking > > > Re: About Unix <- Doug needs a good rebuking > > > > Lourdes' husband here -- > > > > Okay Doug, you are so full of crap, my wife came to me with > > questions based on your misinformation. That's sad. Learn the > > systems and only talk about _what_you_know_! I rebuke your comments > > below. The key here is _technical_facts_. Now if you want to talk > > about those, come to ELUG (http://www.elug.org). We cater to all > > OSS (Open Source Software) users. > > > > Doug Young wrote: > > > Try the following on both a linux & a BSD system > > > setup two identical systems,one with linux & other with BSD > > > give them both a few jobs to do, then hit the "reset" button > > > (you do have power failures in Sweden don't you ??) > > > invariably the BSD system will recover with no damage but > > > the linux one will need a total re-install > > > > I have maintained over 100 production Linux systems over the years > > (since 1995 on corporate networks). I have never, ever had to > > re-install. Same goes for BSD (which I've used limitedly since 1995 > > as well). [ Side note: I've been an NT administrator even longer > > (1992-1999), and re-installs are a fact of life (not as bad as Win9x > > -- but I find NTFS will destroy itself after 2-3 years of good use > > when it "assumes" a journal flush is good). ] > > > > Now I know you are _trying_ to "stress" the fact that most Linux > > distributions don't come with a "journaling filesystem", but the > > default, Linux Ext2 filesystem is quite a reliable filesystem, > > despite its simplicity. In fact, of all the major UFS (UNIX > > Filesystems), it fragments the least (although fragmentation on any > > UFS not even close to being as bad as any Windows OS). > > > > > We did have exclusively linux in our servers but since the changeover to > > > FreeBSD the uptimes have increased to the point where machines > > > generally keep going constantly from one upgrade til the next ... > usually > > > a year or so later. The Redhat / Slackware / Debian systems rarely went > > > for a month before something or other broke. We do have the odd Win2000 > > > Server system (required for certain software applications) & their > uptime > > > is generally superior to linux ..... no comparison with BSD though. > > > > Everyone's going to have their own comments. My main Linux-based > > Samba-NFS file server (which also does mail, CVS and everything else > > under the sun) for over 50 NT, Solaris and Linux clients is running > > RedHat 6.2 with kernel 2.2.16+Ext3+NFS3. Crash recovery times are > > <<5 minutes -- but I've only seen that happen once. It stays up > > forever (until stupid Florida Power goes down). > > > > "Denis J. Cirulis" wrote: > > > I don't want to claim BSD or Linux, I must say I'm using both BSD > > > and Linux about 5 years. > > > > Same boat. No bigotry. > > > > > You're wrong about power failures: first you can switch to > > > ReiserFS and after power failure you wouldn't be asked to do > > > fsck. Journaling FS rocks, but I haven't seen any for FreeBSD. > > > > ReiserFS has issues as an NFS server. Regardless, I have extensive > > knowledge of Ext3 on *PRODUCTION* systems. I'm also moving into > > using XFS (I repackage their kernels from CVS in RPM format) since > > Ext3 doesn't run on 2.4. XFS is a pretty advanced system. > > > > I recently did a presentation on Linux JFS options (focus on Ext3 > > and XFS). You can find it here: > > > > http://www.smithconcepts.com/files/presentations/ELUG_JFS_2001Mar05a.pdf > > > > > One I must say that *BSD under heavy load are more powerfull. > > > > That's the power of its mature VM and scheduler systems. Linux is > > getting there. Linux 2.4 really improves _a_lot_. Linus is getting > > good at balancing simplicity and single-user performance against > > server/multiuser performance. > > > > -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith > > Engineering/SysAdmin, Theseus Logic, Inc. > > Contributing Author, "Samba Unleashed" > > [ Note: One chapter was the "Samba Unleashed" appendix on BSD > > ;-P ] > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message -- Laurence Berland Intern, Flooz.com Northwestern '04 stuyman@confusion.net http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/~laurence "The world has turned and left me here" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AA8988E.A3BBB7DA>