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."

13 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Linux Test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just put a link to each box on /. and wait 24 hours.

  2. USE BAD HARDWARE! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You want to put any OS to the ultimate test, you should run cheap generic hardware. I swear it's an industry conspiracy that generic parts struggle a boat load. If your parts don't come from the big boys (DELL, gateway, etc), you are likely going to see issues down the line.

    Get some ECS motherboard, generic RAM... bang. You're in for the evening.

    1. Re:USE BAD HARDWARE! by spikev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMHO, it's the big boys that have the conspiracy to sell crappy hardware. Try performance testing almost any (PC Chips mobos don't count) custom system against a Dell with a similar hardware configuration, and you'll see what I mean.

      I've done it with my ECS board with generic ram, and I came out on top.

      It's the big computer makers that sell the cheap generic hardware. Try getting anything that's essential and non-OEM, hardware or software, to work with one of those boxes.

  3. Re:Linux Reliability? by rjmx · · Score: 5, Funny

    > You're thinking Microsoft Works.

    I'm thinking it doesn't.

  4. You don't trust Microsoft to evaluate Windows... by davidstrauss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do you trust IBM's Linux Technology Center to evaluate Linux?

  5. s/w -vs- h/w failure? by Quixote · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I skimmed over the article (heretic!), and was wondering: how do they distinguish between software failures (the purpose of the test) and hardware failures (for example, random bit errors in the memory that could be caused by higher temperatures due to the stress testing)?

    I seem to recall getting random crashes with cheapo memory, and it was a pain to track down the offending component. Of course, one would assume that IBM wouldn't go for cheapo components, but still: how does one point the finger at the software, instead of hardware? Is it just repeatability?

    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...

  6. Not bad by changelingyahoo.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nice to hear, but it would be even more valuable if the same tests were performed on a variety of operating systems in order to compare the results.

    Brian

    --
    My Company
  7. Re:You don't trust Microsoft to evaluate Windows.. by davidstrauss · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why shoudn't we trust this test?

    The people performing it have a vested financial interest in having it turn out a specific way, notably positive. If the test resulted showed poor reliability, then I would understand trusting it because it would go against the motives of the people performing it. Since the test affirms their business model, no matter how documented it is, it should be suspect.

    It doesn't appear to be a test rigged to make one platform look better than the other.

    It looks a bit skewed to me. Many of the test results depend on the computer systems meeting expectations of the people testing it, particularly in overload cases. Since the people who tested work in the Linux Technology Center, their expectations stand a greater likelyhood of being consistant with the system.

    Take C/C++ and Java. Someone who regularly works with C/C++ knows certain libraries (notably the character ones) return ints for status in the form 0 being false and not 0 being true. If someone expects that, the system meets expectations and passes. If someone comes from a different background, say Java, he or she may not expect that, and the system would consequently fail the test of meeting expectations. I would like an evaluation from somewhere in-between, not someone whose years of experience allow them to gloss over what might be problems for another person.

  8. Why? Here's why... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • because the test methodologies are documented
    • because it's disclosed up-front that it's IBM Linux Team testing Linux (ie no hidden conflict of interest
    As opposed to the usual (ie in the Microsoft World)
    • ZDNet (and/or others) "testing" Microsoft Products (but only vaguely describing how things were configured)
    • Microsoft paying someone to "report" on the quality/performance of a Microsoft product, but the evaluation is worded in such a way as to convince the user that it's an independent review and the "funded by microsoft" fact is never mentioned anywhere in the evaluation
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. 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.
  9. Here goes by floydman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTA
    The tests demonstrate that the Linux system is reliable and stable over long durations and can provide a robust, enterprise-level environment.
    Ok, now i dont mean to troll here, so mod down if you wish, i really dont care.... BUT...
    I am a linux user/programmer/lover for the past few years now, and i wanna see a company that is not SO IN LOVE with linux say what have just been said by IBM above.
    In other words, i dont want to see companies who sell Linux, or who have benefit in selling Linux praise it. Does any one of you know of someone who fills in these criteria. Sun for one is not very fond of Linux, nor is MS ofcorse (despite the fact sometimes i doubt they have code in their stuff from Linux...)...to make a long story short
    It would be really nice if such a judgment came from someone else besides IBM/REDHAT/ORACLE...

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  10. Scaleable.... really? by tonyr60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The Linux kernel properly scaled to use hardware resources (CPU, memory, disk) on SMP systems."

    Sorry, but how can the scaleability of the CPU resource be proven on a 2 CPU system? Show incremental results on 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc. etc. and then CPU scaleability may be proven.

    This is NOT an anti-Linux troll, rather the evaluation needs to justify it's outcomes or it starts to look like something from a company starting with M.