"Mark Joya" wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Microsoft has been telling everyone that Windows Server can go as high as
> 99.95% uptime.
>
> But how will Microsoft explain to everyone that if you check
> www.microsoft.com in www.netcraft.com, it shows that they reboot their
> servers every 14 days while other Linux based servers can go without reboots
> in the next 365 days?
>
> I'm love Microsoft solutions and I would recommend Microsoft solutions for
> almost anything but can they be serious in working on a Windows Server that
> doesn't require reboots just to install a patch? Service packs are ok but
> patches shouldn't require a reboot. Components should be able to be stalled
> or stopped while patching then resume after the patch process without reboots.

"Newell White" wrote:

> Simple arithmetic tells us that if 14-day reboot is accomplished in 9 minutes
> Mictosoft's claim is true.
>
> We run 2k3 SP1 on our PDC emulator with DNS, WINS, DHCP, and
> Terminal/App/File server roles.
> The 28-day reboot takes about 6 minutes.
>
> The virtues of Linux are of limited interest to working slobs who use this
> group to keep their colleagues up and running, and are never invited to turn
> their organisation's IT skills strategy on its head.
>
> Not that I am deploring free speech - say all you want about Linux and
> yourself.
> ------
> Newell White
>
>
> "Mark Joya" wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Microsoft has been telling everyone that Windows Server can go as high as
> > 99.95% uptime.
> >
> > But how will Microsoft explain to everyone that if you check
> > www.microsoft.com in www.netcraft.com, it shows that they reboot their
> > servers every 14 days while other Linux based servers can go without reboots
> > in the next 365 days?
> >
> > I'm love Microsoft solutions and I would recommend Microsoft solutions for
> > almost anything but can they be serious in working on a Windows Server that
> > doesn't require reboots just to install a patch? Service packs are ok but
> > patches shouldn't require a reboot. Components should be able to be stalled
> > or stopped while patching then resume after the patch process without reboots.

"Mark Joya" wrote:

> It will never happen. Installing the patches will take at least 10 minutes to
> apply 3 or more patches in 1 shot and the reboot process which is around 2
> minutes to shutdown and 2 minutes to boot up (assuming very fast computer).
>
> Regarding your SP1 installation. Did you notice that while you're installing
> the SP1 your machine's services are not usable already until it's done for
> the next 20 minutes or more. Don't tell me that SP1 took only 3 minutes to
> install on your server? Well that's a super computer that doesn't apply to
> everyone.
>
> Frequent reboots is most of the time not an option for hosting companies
> like me. Sometimes, we use the uptime report to increase our credibility to
> our customers and prospects.
>
> By the way, I hope that people won't think that my message was to compare
> Linux and Windows. What I'm trying to say here is a real issue on rebooting
> that we're facing. Did I said earlier that I myself is Microsoft Solution Fan?
>
>
> "Newell White" wrote:
>
> > Simple arithmetic tells us that if 14-day reboot is accomplished in 9 minutes
> > Mictosoft's claim is true.
> >
> > We run 2k3 SP1 on our PDC emulator with DNS, WINS, DHCP, and
> > Terminal/App/File server roles.
> > The 28-day reboot takes about 6 minutes.
> >
> > The virtues of Linux are of limited interest to working slobs who use this
> > group to keep their colleagues up and running, and are never invited to turn
> > their organisation's IT skills strategy on its head.
> >
> > Not that I am deploring free speech - say all you want about Linux and
> > yourself.
> > ------
> > Newell White
> >
> >
> > "Mark Joya" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Microsoft has been telling everyone that Windows Server can go as high as
> > > 99.95% uptime.
> > >
> > > But how will Microsoft explain to everyone that if you check
> > > www.microsoft.com in www.netcraft.com, it shows that they reboot their
> > > servers every 14 days while other Linux based servers can go without reboots
> > > in the next 365 days?
> > >
> > > I'm love Microsoft solutions and I would recommend Microsoft solutions for
> > > almost anything but can they be serious in working on a Windows Server that
> > > doesn't require reboots just to install a patch? Service packs are ok but
> > > patches shouldn't require a reboot. Components should be able to be stalled
> > > or stopped while patching then resume after the patch process without reboots.

"Newell White" wrote:

> Fair enough.
>
> I made no mention of Exchange or IIS, as we have our web-site and e-mail
> served by a hosting company.
> IMO any organisation big enough to justify rolling their own is big enough
> to have Windows and Unix teams.
> No MS marketing man would admit it, but Windows server seems optimised for
> intranets of Windows workstations rather than third-party hosting. And when
> you consider that in this environment each server supports sales of 30-50
> copies of XP and Office, that's correct strategy!
> --
> Newell White

"Mark Joya" wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Microsoft has been telling everyone that Windows Server can go as high as
> 99.95% uptime.
>
> But how will Microsoft explain to everyone that if you check
> www.microsoft.com in www.netcraft.com, it shows that they reboot their
> servers every 14 days while other Linux based servers can go without reboots
> in the next 365 days?
>
> I'm love Microsoft solutions and I would recommend Microsoft solutions for
> almost anything but can they be serious in working on a Windows Server that
> doesn't require reboots just to install a patch? Service packs are ok but
> patches shouldn't require a reboot. Components should be able to be stalled
> or stopped while patching then resume after the patch process without reboots.

"Chris" wrote:

> My 2 cents....If it't aint broken, don't fix it! Time is money. I reboot mine
> every few months or when it's required by patch installation.
>
> "Mark Joya" wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Microsoft has been telling everyone that Windows Server can go as high as
> > 99.95% uptime.
> >
> > But how will Microsoft explain to everyone that if you check
> > www.microsoft.com in www.netcraft.com, it shows that they reboot their
> > servers every 14 days while other Linux based servers can go without reboots
> > in the next 365 days?
> >
> > I'm love Microsoft solutions and I would recommend Microsoft solutions for
> > almost anything but can they be serious in working on a Windows Server that
> > doesn't require reboots just to install a patch? Service packs are ok but
> > patches shouldn't require a reboot. Components should be able to be stalled
> > or stopped while patching then resume after the patch process without reboots.