From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jan 4 6:42: 9 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6522637B401 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 06:42:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.netcologne.de (smtp.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7EB43ED1 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 06:42:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from mail.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-116-95.netcologne.de [213.168.116.95]) by smtp.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910AA86622 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:42:01 +0100 (MET) Received: by mail.tmseck.homedns.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2A3B528422; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:41:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:41:57 +0100 From: Thomas Seck To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability Message-ID: <20030104144157.GA485@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> Reply-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200212170023.gBH0Nvlu000764@beast.csl.sri.com> <20030103000232.GA52181@blazingdot.com> <20030103062708.GA426@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20030103084232.GA3371@localhost.bsd.net.il> <20030103154323.GA454@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <1041659893.9975.179.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1041659893.9975.179.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Wes Peters (wes@softweyr.com): > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:43, Thomas Seck wrote: > > * Nimrod Mesika (nimrod-me@bezeqint.net): > > > > > And uptimes are not important. Downtimes *are*. > > > > Yes. Especially the unscheduled ones. > > Don't be silly, uptimes are terribly important when they're not long > enough to be useful. They're no longer important when they've gotten > long enough to last between system upgrades, which FreeBSD and a number > of other systems are regularly capable of these days. You are over interpreting my message. Using publicly gathered uptimes as a scale to measure 'stability' with is just nonsense, because you cannot tell from the outside whether a 'low' uptime is due to stability issues or due to good maintenance. Doing advocacy based on this is even sillier. Tell me: what is the maximum uptime one can achieve when following all FreeBSD security advisories which involve loading a new kernel due to locally or remotely exploitable kernel vulnerabilities? > I remember people being mightily impressed with VAX/VMS systems being > able to stay up for 30 days at a time. I also more recently recall > system administrators being very disappointed by Windows NT servers > because they couldn't stay up for 6 days at a time and they had NO time > in their schedule when the machines could be rebooted without disrupting > workflow between 0400 Monday and 0400 Saturday. Well, I our NT servers did not BSOD on us for years now. What does this say about NT stability? Right, nothing. The only downtimes we see here are the scheduled ones. I want it to stay that way. Too many people try to squeeze advocacy out of every figure they see somewhere. I don't. --Thomas To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message