Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the and-they-all-run-the-beast dept.
X86BSD writes "Interesting survey at Netcraft showing the most reliable hosting providers for June. Interesting that not just the top 5 are FreeBSD but that the top 10 come from all variants in the industry."
I'm a happy {Free|Open}BSD user after switching from Linux about 4 years ago. I haven't had to monkey with Alice's patches to Bob's kernel mods to run Charles' software since. This isn't a Linux slam but with the BSD family, once you have a stable system it just runs until the hardware dies. In fact I only reboot my OpenBSD boxes when there is a security hole (you know how often that is!) or big upgrade to the kernel/OS that I want, not just the Kernel du Jour.
-- Trolling is a art,
OS is a commodity
by
nuggz
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Although FreeBSD made the front page, it looks like the others are also represented.
To me this suggests that they are all capable, and the differences come from somewhere else, the setup and administration.
If you look at the chart, 2 of the top 5 ARE running Windows 2000.
I presume you're talking about this chart (the one linked in the story doesn't show OS), which lists the top hosting providers over the last 24 hours... Not for the month of June.
In any case, I'm a bit skeptical of the data. They seem to be monitoring the providers' own websites, not their clients' machines or sites. For example, the 24 hour chart shows Interland listed as Win2K... That may be true of www.interland.com, but most of the Interland clients I know are either running dedicated *nix boxen, or running off Solaris virtual hosting accounts at Interland's Communitech branch.
Regardless, I certainly wouldn't rank a host based on their ability to keep their site up. Most if not all of them serve their corporate site from a server unrelated to their clients, and the site (and server itself) are rarely messed with. This is especially true with shared/dedicated hosts.
-- "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start...
by
SoSueMe
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In the bottom 10 (of 50), 1=HP-UX, 2=Linux, 3=Windows, 4=Solaris. I think it is more the admins, rather than the OS's.
top 50 are typical
by
jd142
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you look at the top 50, you get these percentages:
20% FreeBSD 26% Windows (NT and 2000) 30% Linux 22% Solaris
2% HP-UX
This is fairly close to the overall distribution of servers. It usually works out to about the same numbers. Currently, Apache is at 63 percent and IIS is at 26%. Which would be about right if all of the Windows boxes are running IIS and most of the unix variants are running Apache.
So the news appears to be that the top 50 most reliable providers are, generally speaking, reflective of the whole of all providers. Which means that it isn't just the server os that makes a hosting company reliable, it's the hardware and the techs. There's no magic bullet for uptime. You can't categorically say that one os is the absolute best. You have to include the technical skills of the admins in the equation.[1]
[1] You *might* be able to state that free/open source software is more easily secured, but I suspect that the admins running those 25 bsd/linux sites would tell you that their skills made a difference in their uptime.
Re:What about...
by
archen
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually I'm interested in SCO too. Having had the misfortune being an admin for a SCO system for 2 months (before we switched to Linux) I wonder if anyone seriously would use SCO as a webserver. If s o I'd really like to hear about their experiences =P
Netcraft has all sorts of interesting data to dig through. But no place just too look for a total list of OS hosts. Also sort of neat to see what domains interest people the most. (Like #5 linuxsucks.org running on Linux)
This is not surprising.
by
Krapangor
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Main difference between FreeBSD and other system is not it's very good stability but the professionalism of the user base.
FreeBSD comes from an academic background and has much more high-profile users than any other system.
Even the very stable Linux system is dominated by hobbyists. The default installations of non-*BSD system are usually feature laden and sometimes broken. And note that stability of the kernel is not the only issue. If you fuck your configuration then you are fucked for good. It's a common misconception that a stable kernel leads to a stable system.
So, the pros and PhDs tend to use FreeBSD, not only for the above mentioned issues but also due to the clean design, tight codebase and modern algorithms. Note that e.g. FreeBSD was the first system with O(log(n)^2) swapping. This gives a double advantage: you get a stable system with a high-profile userbase. That's why we will always see FreeBSD on the top.
-- Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Re:My trials with *BSD
by
fmaxwell
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It sounds like you don't know how to properly configure the OS.
I agree completely. Whether someone likes BSD or not, its just assinine to assume that 20-minute-plus times to copy a 17MB file are normal on a PIII system. It's pretty damned obvious that BSD does not have slow file I/O when you consider that BSD variants are the OSs of choice for major hosting providers, massive commercial databases, Yahoo!, etc.
Possible, but the HTTP OS header is a lot more easier to change (especially on Apache) than the seqence of TCP packets.
Re:I'd agree, but
by
buss_error
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The point is, many home users push their machines. Sure, they are the admins, but they're also just regular schmoes.
Well, if the system is important to them, they should bestir themselves to learn how to make backups.
My biggest gripe about Novell and MS operating systems, and the Intell platform in general, is the inability to make a boot tape. BRU is able to make a boot disk that will allow a full restore from tape, but that function last I checked was only availble on (gag) SCO.
I want to throw a tape in the drive, tell the BIOS to load the OS from tape, and restore that sucker to disk. I don't want to have to do partial installs, booting from floppy/CD, or any of that crap. Load and go is what I want. Once you've been able to restore a full system image from tape, you'll wonder why all vendors don't offer that function.
-- Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start...
by
Tokerat
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The Linux clock wraps at 497 days.
For those of us who are slightly less familiar with Linux (heh), could you explain (or provide a link to a page explaining) why this happens, and what the reason for it still happening that way is?
Honestly not a troll or anything, just curious and I figure I can get an accurate answer from someone like Alan Cox...
-- CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Re:Too Close to Call
by
josepha48
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you look at this data over a period of time, like a year, you start to see a trend. I'm not sure what that trend would be, but, when you start to think about whose running what, (yahoo = FreeBSD) and then you add in cost (FreeBSD = free), you can then conclude that FreeBSD is just as good as Win2k. Thus if you wanted to cut costs in your company, using FreeBSD would be a good way to do so. Solaris and Linux also do pretty well. Using Solaris "could" be a more expensive solution than Windows if you buy a bog Sun box (yes I realize you can run Solaris on intel and get a small server for $2000).
The second issue that comes into play is what are they running on those OS'es? IIS on Win2k or Apache? Probably Apache on most UNIXish OS'es.
Then next it also must be determined things like what programming languages are they using php, jsp, asp.net, cgi, mod_perl, what? This also affects performance, as some languages are more effecient in the long run.
Lastly the number of servers installed and size. 1 or 500 will affect response time?
Yes I agree, this does not supply enough information, but it does seem to indicate more that ANY OS will do the job. The decision should be what language do you want to program in and what hardware do you want to use.
--
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Hardware, anyone ?
by
fmedio
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Interesting figures. But they don't say anything about the kind of hardware behind the OSes and different http servers. Nor do they describe the network topologies, routing policies or load balancing strategies used by the happy admins of the top-10 uptimers.
Yet, there is that embarrassing all-BSD top five. Tho I don't know how BSD or any OS can be of any help when you lose your storage subsystem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a happy {Free|Open}BSD user after switching from Linux about 4 years ago. I haven't had to monkey with Alice's patches to Bob's kernel mods to run Charles' software since. This isn't a Linux slam but with the BSD family, once you have a stable system it just runs until the hardware dies. In fact I only reboot my OpenBSD boxes when there is a security hole (you know how often that is!) or big upgrade to the kernel/OS that I want, not just the Kernel du Jour.
Trolling is a art,
Although FreeBSD made the front page, it looks like the others are also represented.
To me this suggests that they are all capable, and the differences come from somewhere else, the setup and administration.
In any case, I'm a bit skeptical of the data. They seem to be monitoring the providers' own websites, not their clients' machines or sites. For example, the 24 hour chart shows Interland listed as Win2K... That may be true of www.interland.com, but most of the Interland clients I know are either running dedicated *nix boxen, or running off Solaris virtual hosting accounts at Interland's Communitech branch.
Regardless, I certainly wouldn't rank a host based on their ability to keep their site up. Most if not all of them serve their corporate site from a server unrelated to their clients, and the site (and server itself) are rarely messed with. This is especially true with shared/dedicated hosts.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
In the bottom 10 (of 50), 1=HP-UX, 2=Linux, 3=Windows, 4=Solaris.
I think it is more the admins, rather than the OS's.
If you look at the top 50, you get these percentages:
20% FreeBSD
26% Windows (NT and 2000)
30% Linux
22% Solaris
2% HP-UX
This is fairly close to the overall distribution of servers. It usually works out to about the same numbers. Currently, Apache is at 63 percent and IIS is at 26%. Which would be about right if all of the Windows boxes are running IIS and most of the unix variants are running Apache.
So the news appears to be that the top 50 most reliable providers are, generally speaking, reflective of the whole of all providers. Which means that it isn't just the server os that makes a hosting company reliable, it's the hardware and the techs. There's no magic bullet for uptime. You can't categorically say that one os is the absolute best. You have to include the technical skills of the admins in the equation.[1]
[1] You *might* be able to state that free/open source software is more easily secured, but I suspect that the admins running those 25 bsd/linux sites would tell you that their skills made a difference in their uptime.
Actually I'm interested in SCO too. Having had the misfortune being an admin for a SCO system for 2 months (before we switched to Linux) I wonder if anyone seriously would use SCO as a webserver. If s o I'd really like to hear about their experiences =P
Netcraft has all sorts of interesting data to dig through. But no place just too look for a total list of OS hosts. Also sort of neat to see what domains interest people the most. (Like #5 linuxsucks.org running on Linux)
Main difference between FreeBSD and other system is not it's very good stability but the professionalism of the user base.
FreeBSD comes from an academic background and has much more high-profile users than any other system.
Even the very stable Linux system is dominated by hobbyists. The default installations of non-*BSD system are usually feature laden and sometimes broken. And note that stability of the kernel is not the only issue. If you fuck your configuration then you are fucked for good. It's a common misconception that a stable kernel leads to a stable system.
So, the pros and PhDs tend to use FreeBSD, not only for the above mentioned issues but also due to the clean design, tight codebase and modern algorithms. Note that e.g. FreeBSD was the first system with O(log(n)^2) swapping. This gives a double advantage: you get a stable system with a high-profile userbase. That's why we will always see FreeBSD on the top.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
It sounds like you don't know how to properly configure the OS.
I agree completely. Whether someone likes BSD or not, its just assinine to assume that 20-minute-plus times to copy a 17MB file are normal on a PIII system. It's pretty damned obvious that BSD does not have slow file I/O when you consider that BSD variants are the OSs of choice for major hosting providers, massive commercial databases, Yahoo!, etc.
Hey, some sites of the Top 10 are lying about their OS!
:7 /13%Time=3F116 9B0%O=80%C=-1)
:
;)
# www.nyi.net - FreeBSD
ok
# www.about.com - FreeBSD
ok
# www.nac.net - Windows 2000
ok
# www.interland.net - Windows 2000
LIAR!!
nmap -O www.interland.net gives
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=3.00%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=
# www.inetu.net - FreeBSD
ok
# www.jumpline.com - Linux
ok
# www.myhosting.com - Windows 2000
LIAR!!
nmap -O www.myhosting.com gives
Remote operating system guess: AIX 4.3.2.0-4.3.3.0 on an IBM RS/*
# www.expresstech.com - Windows 2000
ok
# www.hostopia.com - Linux
ok
# www.verio.com - Solaris
ok
There's something rotten in Netcraft kingdom!
Well, if the system is important to them, they should bestir themselves to learn how to make backups.
My biggest gripe about Novell and MS operating systems, and the Intell platform in general, is the inability to make a boot tape. BRU is able to make a boot disk that will allow a full restore from tape, but that function last I checked was only availble on (gag) SCO.
I want to throw a tape in the drive, tell the BIOS to load the OS from tape, and restore that sucker to disk. I don't want to have to do partial installs, booting from floppy/CD, or any of that crap. Load and go is what I want. Once you've been able to restore a full system image from tape, you'll wonder why all vendors don't offer that function.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Honestly not a troll or anything, just curious and I figure I can get an accurate answer from someone like Alan Cox...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The second issue that comes into play is what are they running on those OS'es? IIS on Win2k or Apache? Probably Apache on most UNIXish OS'es.
Then next it also must be determined things like what programming languages are they using php, jsp, asp.net, cgi, mod_perl, what? This also affects performance, as some languages are more effecient in the long run.
Lastly the number of servers installed and size. 1 or 500 will affect response time?
Yes I agree, this does not supply enough information, but it does seem to indicate more that ANY OS will do the job. The decision should be what language do you want to program in and what hardware do you want to use.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Interesting figures. But they don't say anything about the kind of hardware behind the OSes and different http servers. Nor do they describe the network topologies, routing policies or load balancing strategies used by the happy admins of the top-10 uptimers.
Yet, there is that embarrassing all-BSD top five. Tho I don't know how BSD or any OS can be of any help when you lose your storage subsystem.