On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> I agree that the MTBF can be very misleading...
>
> But put it this way: My server ran 2.2.14 for over 400 days before I
> rebooted it. It was down for about 5 minutes while rebooting (probably
> less).
>
> My NT Server gets a nightly reboot. I can't get it to run for more than a
> week without it developing _some_ problem.
>
> Mind you, on both of these systems, nobody is doing any development/kernel
> hacking/anything. They're just mail/www/ftp/dns/login (for linux) servers.
> To a first order approximation, they're basically the same hardware, both
> protected by a UPS.
MTBF is something that's only of value when identical things are compared,
1000 of those things are tested, and some statisticall data is calculated.
With PC, the're just to many factors that play a role.
I think it's safe to assume that with proper management downtime is less
than an hour on a yearly base. Downtime is mostly cause by upgrades, both
hardware and software. These are values I actually present to customers.
Igmar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST