longest without a reboot - Linux

This is a discussion on longest without a reboot - Linux ; Night0wl writes: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:11:57 +0100, Hadron wrote: > >>{snip} > >> How do you help people dump windows? Seriously. > > Hadron? Don't be an idiot. Reformat their hard drives, load Linux > distro of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70

Thread: longest without a reboot

  1. Re: longest without a reboot

    Night0wl writes:

    > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:11:57 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >>{snip}

    >
    >> How do you help people dump windows? Seriously.

    >
    > Hadron? Don't be an idiot. Reformat their hard drives, load Linux
    > distro of choice, and spend maybe a whole 15 minutes showing them how to
    > use it. That's twice as long as it took me to learn the gui side. The


    Don't be a total ninny. I was of course referring to real world
    migration. Not how to remove it and install Linux.

    > rest takes a bit longer, but, if the user is a non-tech, he/she just
    > wants something that works. And Linux DOES sell to frustrated Windoze
    > users, make no mistake!


  2. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:02:34 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Night0wl writes:


    >>> How do you help people dump windows? Seriously.

    >>
    >> Hadron? Don't be an idiot. Reformat their hard drives, load Linux
    >> distro of choice, and spend maybe a whole 15 minutes showing them how
    >> to use it. That's twice as long as it took me to learn the gui side.
    >> The

    >
    > Don't be a total ninny. I was of course referring to real world
    > migration. Not how to remove it and install Linux.


    How much do you know about Linux in general, and Ubuntu in particular?

    I've used a single ISO disk to wipe a system and install Linux in about
    30 minutes. In a corporate environment, with the right commands set, a
    complete network push, including reboots should take about an hour; and
    then, updates can be accomplished at night when the systems are on, but
    logged-out. That could take 2-3 hours. The human factor would involve
    about three hours transitional training -- about what I currently give my
    XP/Office 2003-to-Vista/Office 2007 students, if that long...

    Cheers;
    Ed
    --
    History is three men in a room agreeing to a lie.

  3. Re: longest without a reboot

    Night0wl writes:

    > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:02:34 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Night0wl writes:

    >
    >>>> How do you help people dump windows? Seriously.
    >>>
    >>> Hadron? Don't be an idiot. Reformat their hard drives, load Linux
    >>> distro of choice, and spend maybe a whole 15 minutes showing them how
    >>> to use it. That's twice as long as it took me to learn the gui side.
    >>> The

    >>
    >> Don't be a total ninny. I was of course referring to real world
    >> migration. Not how to remove it and install Linux.

    >
    > How much do you know about Linux in general, and Ubuntu in particular?


    A fair amount.

    >
    > I've used a single ISO disk to wipe a system and install Linux in about
    > 30 minutes. In a corporate environment, with the right commands set, a
    > complete network push, including reboots should take about an hour; and
    > then, updates can be accomplished at night when the systems are on, but
    > logged-out. That could take 2-3 hours. The human factor would involve
    > about three hours transitional training -- about what I currently give my
    > XP/Office 2003-to-Vista/Office 2007 students, if that long...


    You still fail to understand what I mean.

    Real world migration. Real businesses.

    This means work processes, existing libraries of macros, format issues,
    customised SW, networks, VPNs, shared printers etc etc etc.

    That type of thing.

    Yes, anyone who just uses computer to surf the web or knock up "home
    accounts" on a simply spreadsheet can be up and running in no time.


  4. Re: longest without a reboot

    In article ,
    Jerry McBride wrote:
    > > I find a year hard to reach. On our desktops at work, and my server at
    > > home, power failures are the main cause of rebooting. We get a few
    > > storms a year that bring high winds, and there are a zillion trees
    > > around here, and a lot of overhead power lines, so a couple times power
    > > goes for a day or so.
    > >

    >
    > Buy yourself an UPS... it'll do wonders for your linux uptimes. If you're
    > not an aggressive kernel updater, you can find your linux boxes staying up
    > for years without a reboot... NO PROBLEM...


    Well, generally, the time it takes them to restore power from a downed
    line is longer than a UPS will keep a system running. Keep in mind that
    when high winds are bringing down trees, there are generally multiple
    outages.

    Last one that got me at home, for example, it took them 24 hours to get
    to it, and they had something like 100 crews out restoring power.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: longest without a reboot

    In article <6NSdna69HZlBOvDanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
    chrisv wrote:
    > WTF is it with you pieces of **** who claim to object to advocates
    > working with Microsoft products? There is no dilemma there. Jobs and
    > advocacy are two different things.


    It depends on what kind of advocate the person promoting Microsoft
    products is. If they are a Free Software advocate, then they should not
    be promoting non-free products. According to RMS, helping people run
    non-free software (even so little as telling them where to get it) is
    unethical. You would not argue that unethical behavior is fine if done
    for work, would you?

    But for those advocates who aren't Free Software advocates, but just
    advocate Linux, and don't mind running proprietary software on Linux,
    then there's no problem with them using and even promoting Windows for
    work.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: longest without a reboot

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:22:10 -0800 (PST),
    allen.darrin@gmail.com wrote:
    > what is the longest you have had your linux system running without a
    > reboot?
    >
    > A friend of mine went over a year



    At home? few months, we have power issues, even with the inverter.

    At work? over two years, (720 days IIRC) then we moved data centers

    most of the rest of the systems tend to go about 4-8 months before we
    reach a "reboot needed" upgrade of kernel or hardware. Since we have a
    redundant load balanced setup it's not a big deal to drop one out of
    rotation at a time and handle it.

    Uptime per se is not the thing, unplanned downtime, and downtime that
    makes you dance around it is the problem. Like our exchange "cluster" at
    work

    Thank the heavens that Q2 next year is "dump exchange for something that
    fscking *works* well" That and the WSUS server are the last bastions of
    MS-Windows in the office server room, there's no MS-Windows in the DC of
    course.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHbbLDd90bcYOAWPYRAowYAKCo4C/UU7ILQeeuS8PaokJI/KcXNACePqNb
    oUoauijw8Us+TYucLg5m0fw=
    =3oQd
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Disclaimer: Elvis would agree with me, but he's got dirt in his mouth.

  7. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:45:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <6NSdna69HZlBOvDanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
    > chrisv wrote:
    >> WTF is it with you pieces of **** who claim to object to advocates
    >> working with Microsoft products? There is no dilemma there. Jobs and
    >> advocacy are two different things.

    >
    > It depends on what kind of advocate the person promoting Microsoft
    > products is. If they are a Free Software advocate, then they should not
    > be promoting non-free products. According to RMS, helping people run
    > non-free software (even so little as telling them where to get it) is
    > unethical. You would not argue that unethical behavior is fine if done
    > for work, would you?


    RMS cannot decide what is, and isn't, ethical for other another person
    unless he knows what code of ethics that person subscribes to.

    >
    > But for those advocates who aren't Free Software advocates, but just
    > advocate Linux, and don't mind running proprietary software on Linux,
    > then there's no problem with them using and even promoting Windows for
    > work.


    Does Free Software advocacy not mean you promote the use of Free
    Software? Can a person not promote the use of Free Software and use CSS
    at the same time?

    --
    Rick

  8. Re: longest without a reboot

    Rick writes:

    > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:45:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article <6NSdna69HZlBOvDanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>> WTF is it with you pieces of **** who claim to object to advocates
    >>> working with Microsoft products? There is no dilemma there. Jobs and
    >>> advocacy are two different things.

    >>
    >> It depends on what kind of advocate the person promoting Microsoft
    >> products is. If they are a Free Software advocate, then they should not
    >> be promoting non-free products. According to RMS, helping people run
    >> non-free software (even so little as telling them where to get it) is
    >> unethical. You would not argue that unethical behavior is fine if done
    >> for work, would you?

    >
    > RMS cannot decide what is, and isn't, ethical for other another person
    > unless he knows what code of ethics that person subscribes to.


    And yet you and the COLA loonies can?

    Bwahahahahahahaha.

    >
    >>
    >> But for those advocates who aren't Free Software advocates, but just
    >> advocate Linux, and don't mind running proprietary software on Linux,
    >> then there's no problem with them using and even promoting Windows for
    >> work.

    >
    > Does Free Software advocacy not mean you promote the use of Free
    > Software? Can a person not promote the use of Free Software and use CSS
    > at the same time?


    Of course one can. But you seem to confuse the meanings.

    You seem to think here that OSS is "Linux SW" (its not, more OSS runs on
    Windows), and that CSS is "payed for SW on Linux". For sure
    you think anyone using Windows is a moron. get your story straight.

  9. Re: longest without a reboot

    allen.darrin@gmail.com :
    > what is the longest you have had your linux system running without a
    > reboot?
    >
    > A friend of mine went over a year


    Over 400 days, cant remember the exact number, but that was a server. I
    reboot my desktop a couple of times a week to play a game or two on
    Windows.

    --
    Coito ergo sum

    www.websterscafe.com

  10. Re: longest without a reboot

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    > In article <6NSdna69HZlBOvDanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
    > chrisv wrote:
    >> WTF is it with you pieces of **** who claim to object to advocates
    >> working with Microsoft products? There is no dilemma there. Jobs and
    >> advocacy are two different things.

    >
    > It depends on what kind of advocate the person promoting Microsoft
    > products is. If they are a Free Software advocate, then they should not
    > be promoting non-free products. According to RMS, helping people run
    > non-free software (even so little as telling them where to get it) is
    > unethical. You would not argue that unethical behavior is fine if done
    > for work, would you?
    >
    > But for those advocates who aren't Free Software advocates, but just
    > advocate Linux, and don't mind running proprietary software on Linux,
    > then there's no problem with them using and even promoting Windows for
    > work.


    I'm kind of in the middle. I agree with RMS that non-free products tend
    to enslave the user, and aren't as fixable as Free products. On the
    other hand, while RMS would tell you to do without functionality rather
    than use a proprietary product, I'm okay with using one if you really
    need it or want the functionality. As long as you keep in mind that you
    are on a leash of unknown length and unknown termination date.

    Now, as far as unethical behavior done for work, it depends in part on
    the seriousness of the effects of the behavior. And even then, you may
    have to do the work if the only other choice is to starve. Obviously,
    there's no formula you can apply to a situation.

    In any case, DFS and Hadron are using the dilemma to support their
    jeering. That is all.

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: longest without a reboot

    Linonut writes:

    > * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> In article <6NSdna69HZlBOvDanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>> WTF is it with you pieces of **** who claim to object to advocates
    >>> working with Microsoft products? There is no dilemma there. Jobs and
    >>> advocacy are two different things.

    >>
    >> It depends on what kind of advocate the person promoting Microsoft
    >> products is. If they are a Free Software advocate, then they should not
    >> be promoting non-free products. According to RMS, helping people run
    >> non-free software (even so little as telling them where to get it) is
    >> unethical. You would not argue that unethical behavior is fine if done
    >> for work, would you?
    >>
    >> But for those advocates who aren't Free Software advocates, but just
    >> advocate Linux, and don't mind running proprietary software on Linux,
    >> then there's no problem with them using and even promoting Windows for
    >> work.

    >
    > I'm kind of in the middle. I agree with RMS that non-free products tend
    > to enslave the user,


    *snip*

    "enslave"

    Ridiculous.

  12. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:10:09 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:45:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <6NSdna69HZlBOvDanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
    >>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>> WTF is it with you pieces of **** who claim to object to advocates
    >>>> working with Microsoft products? There is no dilemma there. Jobs
    >>>> and advocacy are two different things.
    >>>
    >>> It depends on what kind of advocate the person promoting Microsoft
    >>> products is. If they are a Free Software advocate, then they should
    >>> not be promoting non-free products. According to RMS, helping people
    >>> run non-free software (even so little as telling them where to get it)
    >>> is unethical. You would not argue that unethical behavior is fine if
    >>> done for work, would you?

    >>
    >> RMS cannot decide what is, and isn't, ethical for other another person
    >> unless he knows what code of ethics that person subscribes to.

    >
    > And yet you and the COLA loonies can?
    >
    > Bwahahahahahahaha.


    Laughing at yourself?

    >
    >
    >>
    >>> But for those advocates who aren't Free Software advocates, but just
    >>> advocate Linux, and don't mind running proprietary software on Linux,
    >>> then there's no problem with them using and even promoting Windows for
    >>> work.

    >>
    >> Does Free Software advocacy not mean you promote the use of Free
    >> Software? Can a person not promote the use of Free Software and use CSS
    >> at the same time?

    >
    > Of course one can. But you seem to confuse the meanings.


    That is your incorrect inference.

    >
    > You seem to think here that OSS is "Linux SW"


    I do not..

    (> its not, more OSS runs on Windows),

    Does it? Are you sure?

    > and that CSS is "payed for SW on Linux".


    I do not think that at all. That is, again, your incorrect inference.

    > For sure you think anyone using Windows is a moron.


    Do you never tire of being wrong?

    > get your story straight.


    It is straight.




    --
    Rick

  13. Re: longest without a reboot

    On 2007-12-22, spike1@freenet.co.uk claimed:
    > allen.darrin@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
    >> what is the longest you have had your linux system running without a
    >> reboot?

    >
    >> A friend of mine went over a year

    >
    > I've had a year's uptime before now, I think.
    > It's rare though cos I tend to shutdown when I'm away from the house for
    > more than a couple of days.


    I have a server in the basement that reboots itself every hundred days.
    I don't know why. I don't really care enough to bother looking for the
    cause. It serves, but only certain things which are only important
    other times of the day. It reboots itself at a time that doesn't bother a
    thing because the only activity at 3:30 in the AM is this machine
    gathering the mail from that one.

    If not for that oddity it would have passed 1000 days at one point.
    Currently it would be around 300 days instead of 11.

    --
    Behind a great man, there's a woman preventing him from being greater!

  14. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Dec 22, 2:47 pm, "DFS" wrote:

    > 7: Linux is 50x faster than Windows

    It depends on which version of Windows you are comparing to which
    version of Linux. Microsoft published a benchmark in their "Fast
    Facts" that compared a Linux 2.2 kernel with Windows NT 4.0 using 4
    ethernet cards and for SCSI drives. This peculiar arrangement was
    chosen to force Linux to spinlock more frequently, making it appear
    slower.

    Depending on the benchmark, the configuration, and the type of load
    used, Microsoft has been able to show Windows faster in Bizarre
    benchmarks in which Linux is deliberately crippled while Windows is
    carefully tweaked.

    In a "standard" configuration, running "standard" applications, Linux
    can be as much as 50% faster for things like servers, because it does
    not dedicate memory to graphics consoles and terminal servers. Linux
    has faster memory management as well. In "Real World" environments,
    most Windows machines are only assigned a single function, while Linux
    machines typically perform multiple functions on a single machine.

    Since Microsoft's Licenses expressly forbid the publication of
    benchmarks without Microsoft's prior written permission, and Microsoft
    often rewrites and revises the benchmark parameters, settings, and
    statistical windows to get a more favorable result, Windows appears to
    be faster in these "doctored" benchmarks.

    In Germany, where such benchmark restrictions are treated as a form of
    fraud, benchmarks have been published, and often show Linux as
    substantially faster, as much as 50% faster in certain industry
    standard benchmarks.

    > Homer: Half of Europe has dumped Windows

    I don't think you have yoru facts correct there eather.

    > Roy Lying Spammer: 90% of IT pros reject Vista

    Many corporate IT departments have taken the official stance NOT to
    deploy Vista at this time. This doesn't mean that they will never
    deploy Vista, but for now, they are ordering machines with Windows XP,
    which meets their needs.

    The bigger obstacle to Vista is not the IT department, but the Legal
    department. Many of the new restrictions on Vista, even Vista
    Business Edition, are a big concern. In addition, a license that
    gives Microsoft permission to completely disable the machine if they
    SUSPECT piracy, just doesn't play well, especially with companies who
    had Volume License Manager licenses disabled when support programs
    were not renewed.

    How many companies are looking at Linux as a Desktop and Laptop
    solution is anybody's guess. A computer world survey suggested that
    85% of the respondents (self selected) were implementing plans for
    Linux migration as a result of Microsoft's attempt to "Force Feed"
    them XP. Many companies are still using Windows 2000.

    When Microsoft attempted to force corporate customers to upgrade to
    Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 by declaring Windows NT 4.0 to be
    "obsolete and unsopported", they found that many of these older NT
    systems were being converted to Linux or Unix, especially of the
    applications were written in Java.



    > Rasker: Vista requires 10x-20x the resources of Linux


    Again, this depends on the version of Linux used, the configuration
    used, and the applications being run. Slackware Linux running
    standard Linux applications such as FireFox, OpenOffice, and other
    common applications can run with as little as 256 Megabytes since
    Linux makes more efficient use of swap and paging space. Vista
    Ultimate, in 3D mode, running Office 2007, and new applications
    written specifically for Vista - can push the memory requirements to 2
    gigabytes. Almost 10x more memory.

    > Ballard: 70% of Dell's recent PC sales are Ubuntu

    You got mine totally wrong. I said 70% of Dell's PC sales are "Linux
    Ready" machines that are CAPABLE of running Ubuntu.





  15. Re: longest without a reboot

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    > On Dec 22, 2:47 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    >
    >> 7: Linux is 50x faster than Windows


    > In a "standard" configuration, running "standard" applications, Linux
    > can be as much as 50% faster for things like servers, because it does
    > not dedicate memory to graphics consoles and terminal servers.


    Show me the config, the study, the benchmark, the hardware, the software,
    who did it, etc.


    > Linux
    > has faster memory management as well. In "Real World" environments,
    > most Windows machines are only assigned a single function, while Linux
    > machines typically perform multiple functions on a single machine.


    I don't believe this.


    > Since Microsoft's Licenses expressly forbid the publication of
    > benchmarks without Microsoft's prior written permission, and Microsoft
    > often rewrites and revises the benchmark parameters, settings, and
    > statistical windows to get a more favorable result, Windows appears to
    > be faster in these "doctored" benchmarks.


    How do you know they're doctored? Why wouldn't MS just lie about
    everything, the way cola idiots claim they do?



    > In Germany, where such benchmark restrictions are treated as a form of
    > fraud, benchmarks have been published, and often show Linux as
    > substantially faster, as much as 50% faster in certain industry
    > standard benchmarks.


    Show me the config, the study, the benchmark, the hardware, the software,
    who did it, etc.



    >> Homer: Half of Europe has dumped Windows

    > I don't think you have yoru facts correct there eather.


    Homer sure doesn't. It was his claim.



    >> Roy Lying Spammer: 90% of IT pros reject Vista

    > Many corporate IT departments have taken the official stance NOT to
    > deploy Vista at this time.


    Virtually every corporation in the world has an official stance against
    desktop Linux.


    > This doesn't mean that they will never
    > deploy Vista, but for now, they are ordering machines with Windows XP,
    > which meets their needs.


    More are ordering Vista systems than XP, as MS has sold 80,000,000+ licenses
    in under a year.


    > How many companies are looking at Linux as a Desktop and Laptop
    > solution is anybody's guess. A computer world survey suggested that
    > 85% of the respondents (self selected) were implementing plans for
    > Linux migration as a result of Microsoft's attempt to "Force Feed"
    > them XP.


    The old "Linux contingency plan" eh? My guess is you'll be spouting this
    for the next 25 years.



    > Many companies are still using Windows 2000.


    How many? Which?


    > When Microsoft attempted to force corporate customers to upgrade to
    > Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 by declaring Windows NT 4.0 to be
    > "obsolete and unsopported", they found that many of these older NT
    > systems were being converted to Linux or Unix, especially of the
    > applications were written in Java.


    Who's 'they'?


    >> Rasker: Vista requires 10x-20x the resources of Linux

    >
    > Again, this depends on the version of Linux used, the configuration
    > used, and the applications being run.


    All that matters is you compare two systems with similar functionality and
    apps - that means at a minimum KDE. And no KDE system will run with 1/10th
    of the 512mb Vista minimum.



    > Slackware Linux running
    > standard Linux applications such as FireFox, OpenOffice, and other
    > common applications can run with as little as 256 Megabytes since
    > Linux makes more efficient use of swap and paging space. Vista
    > Ultimate, in 3D mode, running Office 2007, and new applications
    > written specifically for Vista - can push the memory requirements to 2
    > gigabytes. Almost 10x more memory.


    In DFS math 2gb/256mb = 8x. Regardless, it's horse**** of the highest
    order. Vista runs OK in 512mb. Vista/Aero and Office 2007 runs fine in
    1gb.


    >> Ballard: 70% of Dell's recent PC sales are Ubuntu

    > You got mine totally wrong. I said 70% of Dell's PC sales are "Linux
    > Ready" machines that are CAPABLE of running Ubuntu.


    I was wrong. Your claim was 70% of recent Dell shipments were XP.




  16. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "allen.dar...@gmail.com"
    wrote:
    > what is the longest you have had your linux system running without a
    > reboot?
    >
    > A friend of mine went over a year


    I've had a few servers that went 2 years without a reboot.

    There are reports Linux servers going as long as 4 years without a
    reboot.

    The biggest problem is that Linux kernel upgrades are more frequent
    than BSD, and since the system needs to be rebooted to install the new
    kernel, it's hard to resist the temptation to reboot to get a 20%
    increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size.


  17. Re: longest without a reboot

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    > The biggest problem is that Linux kernel upgrades are more frequent
    > than BSD, and since the system needs to be rebooted to install the new
    > kernel, it's hard to resist the temptation to reboot to get a 20%
    > increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size.


    Are you saying moving to kernel 2.6.23.12 from 2.6.18.8 will result in ..."a
    20% increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size."?



  18. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Dec 26, 11:14 am, "SW" wrote:
    > Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    > > The biggest problem is that Linux kernel upgrades are more frequent
    > > than BSD, and since the system needs to be rebooted to install the new
    > > kernel, it's hard to resist the temptation to reboot to get a 20%
    > > increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size.

    >
    > Are you saying moving to kernel 2.6.23.12 from 2.6.18.8 will result in ..."a
    > 20% increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size."?


    No, but upgrading from a 1.2 kernel to a 1.4 then to 2.0 then 2.2
    kernel can give some substantial improvements in performance - in
    specific environments. 2.4 kernel added the queue based scheduler and
    virtually eliminated the bottleneck of spinlocks. The 2.6 kernel
    improved 64 bit performance and 64bit memory addressability, as well
    as 64 bit file addressing.

    The latter changes wouldn't make a word processor run much faster, but
    if you are doing a database of photographic images, medical images, or
    financial records, it can provide a substantial performance
    improvement.

    Keep in mind that there were similar evolutions in the Windows kernel,
    as Windows 3.0 went to Windows 3.1 with improved support for larger
    memory models, and then to Win32 with it's 32 bit memory model and 32
    bit registers, and the transition from FAT to FAT16 to FAT32 and
    NTFS. Each upgrade provided access to larger storage capacities and
    larger file sizes.

    There are still fundamental design differences between Windows and
    Linux which makes Linux perform substantially faster on industry
    standard benchmarks such as bytemark benchmarks.

    Windows narrows the gap when benchmarks are based on a single process
    multi-threaded application (IIS or SQL Server) using standard "Cluster
    Sized blocks" (typically exact multiples of 4096) and compared against
    functionally identical Linux application that uses standard
    multitasking and standard file systems designed to optimally store and
    retrieve sequential files and chunks of data in random lengths.

    Windows has scalability to about 8 Intel processor cores, Linux has
    scalability to 64 core ZVM Mainframes. Vista needs a minimum of 512
    meg, 30 gigabytes of hard drive, and at least a 1 billion instruction
    per second processor. Linux can scale down to systems the size of an
    ethernet connector, with a few megabytes of memory and a few megabytes
    of flash storage. There are even specialized Linux systems that can
    perform such dedicated functions as terminal servers or PPP gateways.
    Linux powered gateways, routers, WiFi hubs, Firewalls, Appliances,
    Storage controllers, printer controllers, and DVRs all function very
    well on very light horsepower.

    If you have HDTV, there is a good chance that Linux or Unix is the
    brains behind it. If you have a DVR, it's probably powered by Unix or
    Linux. If you have a cable modem, it's probably powered by Linux or
    Unix. If you have an "electronic picture frame" it's probably powered
    by Linux or Unix. Even some USB drives, as well as most SAN drives,
    and SAN controllers are powered by Linux or Unix.

    It's becoming more and more common to see Linux devices in the home,
    in the office, and in the computer room.

    If you think about it, the amount of things you do that are done by
    Windows, only by Windows, and can only be done by Windows, is very
    rapidly shrinking.

    Even such things as adding Visual Basic instructions to your Word
    Processing or Spreadsheet program is also possible with Open Office on
    Linux.

    This is reducing the value of premium priced applications such as
    Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, and Microsoft Visio.


  19. Re: longest without a reboot

    Rex Ballard :
    > On Dec 26, 11:14 am, "SW" wrote:
    >> Are you saying moving to kernel 2.6.23.12 from 2.6.18.8 will result in ..."a
    >> 20% increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size."?

    >
    > No, but upgrading from a 1.2 kernel to a 1.4 then to 2.0 then 2.2
    > kernel can give some substantial improvements in performance - in
    > specific environments. 2.4 kernel added the queue based scheduler and
    > virtually eliminated the bottleneck of spinlocks. The 2.6 kernel
    > improved 64 bit performance and 64bit memory addressability, as well
    > as 64 bit file addressing.


    Rex:

    I haven't read many of your posts simply because they're long and I have
    little time. I'm glad I took the time to read that. Well said. You've
    spanked your trolls well.

    --
    Conquest is easy. Control is not.
    -- Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror", stardate unknown

    www.websterscafe.com

  20. Re: longest without a reboot

    Handover Phist wrote:
    >
    > Rex:
    >
    > I haven't read many of your posts simply because they're long and I
    > have little time. I'm glad I took the time to read that. Well said.
    > You've spanked your trolls well.


    linux-1.2.13.tar.gz 02-Aug-1995
    linux-1.3.100.tar.bz2 10-May-1996
    no 1.4.x kernel**
    linux-2.0.8.tar.gz 25-Jul-1996
    linux-2.2.12.tar.bz2 26-Aug-1999
    linux-2.4.0.tar.gz 04-Jan-2001
    linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2 18-Dec-2003



    Rex uses 500 words to say, "Software evolves over time." and you call it
    spanking. You're a freaking goofball.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast