Uptime-record

Uptime-record

Post by Zmoo » Mon, 19 Apr 1999 04:00:00



Hi,

I just ran into a neat site that keeps track of uptimes. It's on
http://uptime.hexon.cx. It's is a client-server system, and clients are
available for a lot of OS's. At the moment there are about 30 registered
FreeBSD hosts on a total of about 500. It's very nice to see a
FreeBSD-box on the second place with an uptime of almost 600 days! It'd
be nice to see some more FreeBSD-systems in the list :) Maybe you can
register yours ?

 --Zmooc

 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Mikhail Kru » Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Well, FreeBSD is actually first if you look at the average uptime for
the OSes
(as opposed to individual records which are no fun -- you can have Win95
with uptime of 3 years if you won't do anything on it)

> Hi,

> I just ran into a neat site that keeps track of uptimes. It's on
> http://uptime.hexon.cx. It's is a client-server system, and clients are
> available for a lot of OS's. At the moment there are about 30 registered
> FreeBSD hosts on a total of about 500. It's very nice to see a
> FreeBSD-box on the second place with an uptime of almost 600 days! It'd
> be nice to see some more FreeBSD-systems in the list :) Maybe you can
> register yours ?

>  --Zmooc


 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Dean Lombard » Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:00:00



> Well, FreeBSD is actually first if you look at the average uptime for
> the OSes
> (as opposed to individual records which are no fun -- you can have Win95
> with uptime of 3 years if you won't do anything on it)

Not true.  According to a computer magazine article I read, Microsoft
have announced a bug in Windows 95 which causes it to crash after
exactly 47.5 days of continuous operation.  It was discovered very
recently, since no-one had actually had the opportunity to run Windows
for that long without a crash before.

Dean

 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Tyrel Burto » Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Actually, Windows 95/98 has a bug in it that will cause it to lock up
after 47.7 days (or something like that). Check it out on microsoft's
homepage somewhere....

Tyrel.


> Well, FreeBSD is actually first if you look at the average uptime for
> the OSes
> (as opposed to individual records which are no fun -- you can have Win95
> with uptime of 3 years if you won't do anything on it)


> > Hi,

> > I just ran into a neat site that keeps track of uptimes. It's on
> > http://uptime.hexon.cx. It's is a client-server system, and clients are
> > available for a lot of OS's. At the moment there are about 30 registered
> > FreeBSD hosts on a total of about 500. It's very nice to see a
> > FreeBSD-box on the second place with an uptime of almost 600 days! It'd
> > be nice to see some more FreeBSD-systems in the list :) Maybe you can
> > register yours ?

> >  --Zmooc

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrel Burton                            "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men

http://www.pangea.ca/tyrelb             An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
                                        For promis'd joy!"  - R. Burns
 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Nobod » Wed, 21 Apr 1999 04:00:00


: Not true.  According to a computer magazine article I read, Microsoft
: have announced a bug in Windows 95 which causes it to crash after
: exactly 47.5 days of continuous operation.  It was discovered very
: recently, since no-one had actually had the opportunity to run Windows
: for that long without a crash before.

I think the bug is with the person who can stand Windows for 47.5 days
straight.

 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Mikhail Kru » Sun, 02 May 1999 04:00:00


I've never really tried to leave W95 on for more than one day
but our NT web server shows quite impressive uptimes. (around month
maybe)
The thing is it's hard to tell since you need to reboot after you do
*anything* on NT.




> >> Well, FreeBSD is actually first if you look at the average uptime
> >> for the OSes (as opposed to individual records which are no fun
> >> -- you can have Win95 with uptime of 3 years if you won't do
> >> anything on it)

> >Not true.  According to a computer magazine article I read, Microsoft
> >have announced a bug in Windows 95 which causes it to crash after
> >exactly 47.5 days of continuous operation.  It was discovered very
> >recently, since no-one had actually had the opportunity to run Windows
> >for that long without a crash before.

> Sorry - that's NT.  It has to do with a signed integer being used
> by a time and going negative in 47.7 days.  This was the same
> problem that some Unix variants had ever 248 days.  The difference
> is that Unix counts 100 clock ticks per second and NT counts 1000
> times per second, thus it will fall over (for certain applications)
> 10 times sooner.  I'd just as soon not have THAT kind of speed
> increase.

> --


 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Bill Vermilli » Fri, 14 May 1999 04:00:00




>I've never really tried to leave W95 on for more than one day but
>our NT web server shows quite impressive uptimes. (around month
>maybe) The thing is it's hard to tell since you need to reboot
>after you do *anything* on NT.

That's IMPRESSIVE ?????   For NT perhaps.

--

 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by da.. » Fri, 14 May 1999 04:00:00


For NT uptime of 1 month is almost impossible.  I find that hard to
believe.   With the bloated code and numerous memory leaks, it is a
fact that if you are using IIS on NT for full time webserving a reboot
is required at MINIMUM for optimum performace.

As for quality uptime.  I have radius boxes and webservers that have
uptime over 365 days.   NT will never be able to do that.





>>I've never really tried to leave W95 on for more than one day but
>>our NT web server shows quite impressive uptimes. (around month
>>maybe) The thing is it's hard to tell since you need to reboot
>>after you do *anything* on NT.

>That's IMPRESSIVE ?????   For NT perhaps.

>--


 
 
 

Uptime-record

Post by Darren Colema » Sat, 15 May 1999 04:00:00


1month for NT is pretty good I guess, recently I had to reboot our novell
3.12 box because it had lost some memory and couldn't be recovered.  Its
uptime was about 743 days, and once it was rebooted it just kept chugging
on.

Darren




> >I've never really tried to leave W95 on for more than one day but
> >our NT web server shows quite impressive uptimes. (around month
> >maybe) The thing is it's hard to tell since you need to reboot
> >after you do *anything* on NT.

> That's IMPRESSIVE ?????   For NT perhaps.

> --