| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows Server reliability crashes in 2007 | |
|
||
| Time: 23:54 EST/04:54 GMT | News Source: ZDNet Australia | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The downtime experienced by Windows Server 2003 increased 25 percent to nine hours per server per year, while the reliability of mainstream server-based Linux distributions improved significantly, according to a Yankee Group survey.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:39:37 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at 4/17/2008 12:37:59 AM |
| 9hrs out of a possible ~8700hr's still isn't too bad in my books... I use to contract to businesses that would have scheduled and enforced downtimes of 4hrs every week ( !!! ) even if they did not have any maintainence to perform to the network and/or servers. |
| #2 By 88850 (221.128.180.173) at 4/17/2008 3:12:09 AM |
| These days downtime is *mostly* related to patching, rather than crashes due to instability or attacks. If Microsoft finds to way to patch in-use files or some other trick using which the kernel is patched but smoothly replaced, downtime resulting out of this will be zero. |
| #3 By 16045 (208.250.9.25) at 4/17/2008 8:13:39 AM |
| As a Windows Server admin, I must say that our downtime is almost none. Being on-call is a breeze cause we almost never get called. That is in a 250 server environment. SQL Server is rock solid as well. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/17/2008 9:40:27 AM |
| The only server downtime we have had was VMWare related. |
| #5 By 52115 (66.181.69.210) at 4/17/2008 1:14:59 PM |
| #4: May I ask what was involved with the VMWare issues? |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/17/2008 2:09:25 PM |
| Too bad about Windows Server becoming less reliable. Good thing there's Linux. No matter how much Microsoft tries, you can't keep a good OS down. |
| #7 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 4/17/2008 3:24:39 PM |
|
"The 2006 survey found that both Linux and Windows Server 2003 were relatively crash-prone compared to Unix"
The study talks up to this point about downtime, not crashes. Was a separate "crash" metric also recorded? I'd probably want to dig into the study in more detail, but these kinds of things are great for the Windows team to hear. I agree with the other comments--most likely, the issues here are patching-related, along with some administrative practices. This is especially true with regard to UNIX--UNIX is increasingly getting squeezed out of smaller hardware and tasks and running mostly on big-iron boxes with critical jobs these days, and those systems tend to be administered differently. However, that's not true of Linux. Hopefully "hot-patching" is going to be leveraged heavily in W2k8 and beyond. Things have been improving for Windows up until this point (remember having to reboot NT4 if you so much as opened the Network Control Panel? Changing IP addresses without a reboot--radical concept!), but this is a good call for even more. At the same time, though, some of the administrative practices out there are horrible. I know there are shops out there that reboot their Exchange servers weekly because "that's how we've always done it." It's not early NT4 days, folks, c'mon. Someone is pulling the average way, way down--there is absolutely *no way* our servers spend even close to 9 hours down per year. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 4/17/2008 3:43:48 PM |
| We use SBS 2003 R2 and most of the times we reboot, as others have already noted, to install patches and updates. Our last rebooting was after installing a new version of our AV software. |
| #9 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 4/17/2008 8:05:35 PM |
| #5: I can't speak at to the exact what fix/patch was applied to the VMWare boxes as IBM supports that aspect of our organization. The Intel Servers hosted on the VMWare experienced connectivity issues. VMware said the boxes were up but you couldn't even ping them. |
| #10 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/18/2008 10:13:40 AM |
|
#5: You jinxed me! This problem just occurred again this morning.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:39:37 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
