Ryzom

Nice story Lazarus

I guess the NT4 machine wasn't running Microsoft Exchange or IIS - otherwise we'll need a scientific study into why the thing didn't crash

lazarus wrote:I'm not going to get into this debate as I don't know much about Linux, other than using it as a cheap admin OS for a firewall system that a company I used to work for made, but I wanted to relate a story to you - the story of the missing server...

Some time ago, I went to visit a company called... well, it doesn't matter what they were called but suffice to say they're a world leader in logistics. Anyway, they spend a huge amount of money on their technology center as it's the showcase for stuff their global divisions may be interested in using.

One time I went to visit them and somehow the subject of Linux and Windows server reliability came up, and the manager of this place told me this story. It appears that during a network topography check they were doing, they realised they were missing a server. The server was there on the network but no-one could actually find the box. Eventually they traced the cables to the machine, only to discover that somehow it had been bricked up into a wall space during some construction work that had happened some five years previously.

So, this server had spent five years bricked up behind a wall, covered in cement and brick dust and mould and had never failed once. It had been used as a file server and mail server, with some other minor bits and pieces running on it too.

The OS on this 'lost' server that had survived five years of entombment without failing once?

Windows NT4.

Depending on the hardware and the way that server was config'd, it is possible that, that server had "crashed" numerous times during those 5 years, and had simply ASR'd and rebooted when it had "crashed". It's doubtful that the event logs would of had sufficiant (sp?) space to keep all the events available to browse through (unless it had been config'd to retain its logs for over 5 years..), so unless you were really looking for it (i can't even remember if there is a out-of-the-box tool which would allow you to see the uptime of a NT4 server), you might not ever know.

/Just saying.
//Have no idea what was checked to state the server had remained stable for 5 years, so all i wrote above is pure speculation.

I'm all for Linux support, but let them get the windows version working first.
I may be wrong but would this not slow them down on game development working on 2 sets of code.

Hi Everybody and especially grandma off course

I come from the French community an I just dropped by a moment to see if all the community expressed their desire to obtain a Linux client

I'm pleased to see that the US community have a sticky subject on this matter

Si I just like you to know that I will relay your message on our community, hoping that the same interest fropm our CSR will lead the subject on top pages of the forum and will convey our desire to the Nevrax devel

Thanks for the idea

Good game and long life to the OpenSource

thexdane wrote:funny i'd REALLY love to see that. i know that a windows CAN'T perform better than a linux server. i've seen it in action, if windows could perform better than linux as a server why is there more apache webservers than iis?

i have boxes that have uptime in actual years, i've yet to see a windows last more than a few months as just a desktop system let alone a server

http://www.uptime-project.net/page.php?page=toplist
'nuff said

xenofur wrote:http://www.uptime-project.net/page.php?page=toplist
'nuff said

1. w2kdudes 3y 120d 18h 50m 37s


whoa... 3 1/2 yrs up!

xenofur wrote:http://www.uptime-project.net/page.php?page=toplist
'nuff said

Sorry to say, but you posted a list of the "Top Ten Virus Farms" (ok minus the bsd-boxes).
Any W2K or XP computer with an internet connection needed at least some security related patches (and in all cases a reboot).
I suspect number 1 on this list is either patched and silently rebooted or in a rather unhealthy condition.

I'm not against anyone’s favourite OS, but the boxes on this list are just sorry examples .

Carfesch

Edit: I forgot it's "read, think, post" and not the other way round, my bad.

good router and hardware-firewall and such things are not a problem at all

That list is so bogus, especially the 2003 servers listed, I can believe any non windows box being up that long, but frankly, not a windows machine, especially a 2003, simply because it wasn't officially released until like a year and half ago and some people have a 2003 server up for more than 2 years in that list unless I misread something, I mean I did look at it with my glasses off.

Beta's don't count.
Most beta's had a 120 day expiration date then they shut down, literally, there was one exception to that rule, and that was a 2003 enterprise server version with a 365 day expiration date.

On the flip side, I can see all Linux boxes running for years on end, provided they are in a datacenter and have UPS backup of some sort and are NEVER patched, on top of they they never have new software installed.

Every time I install something new on my linux machines, I tend to have to rebuild the kernel atleast 1 time every few installs, because of something new I need added to it.

Personally I will never ever believe a 2000 machine is up for more than 1 year straight, even with xeon processors, and the best hardware in the business.

2000 has a memory leak flaw in both standard edition and enterprise edition, this flaw wasn't fixed until about 2 years ago, because of this flaw the machine ran out of memory / virtual memory within 6 months and had to be rebooted to clear the memory or nothing would run.

They had patches out to fix it, anyone who patched was fixed, so any server in the list thats a 2000 server and is over 2 years running, is way bogus.

about missing server...

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010409S0012