Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Putting Linux Reliability to the Test

Posted by michael on from the flying-colors dept.

Frank writes "This paper documents the test results and analysis of the Linux kernel and other core OS components, including everything from libraries and device drivers to file systems and networking, all under some fairly adverse conditions, and over lengthy durations. The IBM Linux Technology Center has just finished this comprehensive testing over a period of more than three months and shares the results of their LTP (Linux Test Project) testing."

3 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Re:s/w -vs- h/w failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.memtest86.com/ Freeware GPL bootable memory tester for PC platforms... highly recommeded for troubleshooting flaky RAM...

  2. Re:Why? Here's why... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Informative
    OK, so the Reality Check in this equation amounts to:

    You should not trust this evaluation at all.
    • Go to the site
    • download the testing tools yourself
    • read the test paper
    • use the test methodologies as documented
    • do your best to verify their test results yourself
    • go back to the site
    • post your results for everyone else to see
    (ie follow the good practices of basic science)

    After all... On the internet , nobody knows you're a dog.

    Any JimBOB can write a convinving paper, with all the right buzzwords, that sounds as if X+Y=Z, especially if that was logically a likely/expected outcome in the first place.

    As a well-known TV show once said (several times and loudly) Trust No-One.

    Remember people, YMMV.
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  3. IMHO by kmichels · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nice to see some number coming in on Linux stability, although, as someone once said: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anyone who has done any stats at University will know that you can prove anything from any result set. And as has already been pointed out by someone, the fact that it has been done by a company who has a not insubstantial vested interest in getting Linux into as many big companies as they can, it carries about as much credability as a Windoze security evaluation paper done by anyone other than Linus.


    The very reason Linux has already made so many inroads into coporations in the first place is because of its reliability and stability, and not because some marketing campaign has churned out the words on header paper.


    Another point is that I personally expect the sytems I administer to run for a darn side longer than 30, 60 or 90 days unless I need to restart them because of a kernel upgrade. When my last bunch I worked for went tits-up, our SAMBA file server had a 790 day uptime, and had run the SAMBA daemons reliably throughout, as well as doing internal DNS and DHCP. That's what your average Linux sysadmin expects from a Linux server box.


    A Linux desktop being used for all manner of things though is completely another story: if I muck around with the Linux install on my laptop, as I do because that's what I do, then I expect to break it from time to time, and so "reliability" is not measured in the same way on a desktop/laptop system, IMHO.


    The ideal environment for Linux is as a networked server, where it can get on with doing what it was setup to do, and will continue doing so until someone pulls the power plug on it. In that context, there are few OS's playing on the same field that can rival it for reliability and stability.