Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:57:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> Cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Slashdot rejects "BSD is NOT dying" article Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030928235610.87613G-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20030928192758.J74590@fubar.adept.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Mike Hoskins wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Michal Pasternak wrote: > > Well, just make sure to click each domain and see, what do the guys behind > > it really do ;) I am perfectly sure, that their boxes work quite much > > everyday. > > that's what the load balancer bit refered to... my point was there are > lots of technologies out there that can make a given URI look highly > available without having anything much at all to do with the underlying > operating system of the hosts themselves. > > i'm a BSD fan, and we do quite well in the stats... that's good, and > i'm glad to see it. i'm just pointing out that "uptime" alone can give > results that don't really say much about the site's OS of choice. big > sites like Dell and M$ run mostly IIS installs these days... they don't > achieve uptime (from a user's or netcraft's perspective) due to the > merits of their OS/product. I'm actually far less interested in the "uptime" stats than in the "number of host" stats -- an area where load balancers hurt numbers rather than helping :-). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030928235610.87613G-100000>