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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!