Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: FS corruption... some help maybe?? | Date | Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:04:56 MET DST | From | Herbert Wengatz 42850 <> |
| |
+> > +> > Can you tell me, what use rebooting is? +> +> new hardware, sometimes (keyword is sometimes not all the +> time) you may need to reboot for changes in inetd configurations +> to take effect.. /etc/hosts file changes, I have had to.. what +> is your system doing? +> how do you run fsck? can you unmount the system drive and +> run fsck on it? And not reboot? If that is the case then rather +> than reboot I'd do that once a week ..
You are naming the exceptions. A system is OK to reboot for the following occasions:
- changes in the hardware If you don't have a true HA-solution, replacing a cpu-board is considered severe enough. - Maybe even adding some ethernet cards, or harddisk. But if you *have* a HA-solution, these are NOT considered to be a reason for a reboot. - basic changes in the systems internals (as changes in the /etc/hosts) (You may even change this in singleusermode...) Going into singleusermode is not considered a reboot, since the systems uptime keeps growing...
I don't consider a upgrade of any piece of software that does not belong directly to the kernel as being a system internal. I.E. an upgrade of an office-package should be no reason at all to reboot the system. - In fact, where I work, we replaced (updated) the complete Applixware-package overnight on all our customers workstations. - Hasslefree, without any complains and not a single reboot!
- after a severe crash: Filesystemschecks - But you only need to go into singleusermode for that! (Same goes for chancges in the /etc/hosts)
When you leave these rare and necessary occasions away, what is left?
Exact the situations, where NT falls over it's own bootstraps. +> > At work (where I use Sun workstations) I have three machines +> > (USER-Workstations! +> > Where there are sitting users at the thing, logging in and out +> > and crashing +> > their applications all day long ;) ) - and these three +> > machines have an +> > uptime of far more than 280 days!!!!! (one is over 290 !) +> > +> does Suns filesystems need to be fsck'd?
Of course! - But only after a severe system crash. - Which I consider to be an acceptable reason to make an fsck. ;-)
As long as you can manage to keep your system free of memmory leaks, zombies and system crashes, there is no dire need for a fsck or reboot at all.
+> > Can anybody please show me *any* NT-User-WS with such uptime? +> > +> +> okay now you are dreaming...
Why should I?
Why should I expect less from NT than from Solaris, when it's *THAT* great, as M$ tries to suggest everybody and his uncle?
I'm sitting here with my real life experience and I'm still awaiting M$ to come even a tiny bit closer to what I call a stable (which I call *PROFESSIONAL*) system. - They don't get it. They haven't got it for years now. - Even Linux was completely developed during the time M$ exists, so M$ has a major advantage over Linux in this case. - Is NT more stable? - No. Has it more features? - No. - Is it cheaper? - No. - Does it perform better? - In most cases: No.
So why should I use NT?
Neutral analysts believe that NT contains 2.3 million bugs. *GULP* And now comes Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0) - guess how many bugs...
The analysts guess it will be around 5 million bugs.
I won't dare say Linux is flawless, but I consider it to have a vast amount of bugs less than 5 millions...
Just my 0.02 $
Best regards,
Herbert
"Why aren't our NT-people in this meeting?" - "We are talking here about systems with which we have troubles when they are running NOT." Two of my coworkers in a meeting about a scheduled powerdown for crucial servers of a major german bank.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |