Slashdot Mirror
Windows Servers Beat Linux Servers
RobbeR49 writes "Windows Server 2003 was recently compared against Linux and Unix variants in a survey by the Yankee Group, with Windows having a higher annual uptime than Linux. Unix was the big winner, however, beating both Windows and Linux in annual uptime. From the article: 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors, are offline more and longer than either Windows or Unix competitors, the survey said. The reason: the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation.' Yankee Group is claiming no bias in the survey as they were not sponsored by any particular OS vendor."
I have run both windows servers and linux servers over the last 10 years and my experience is higher uptime with linux servers. Windows machines deal poorly with memory leaking apps and need rebooting for every service pack or required update. I only need to restart specific processes with linux when there is a justified upgrade.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/ar chives/2005/04/the_truth_about_1.htmln ux/story/0,10801,82070,00.html ... "The courts are going to ultimately have to prove this, but based on what I'm seeing ... I think there is a basis that SCO has a credible case," DiDio said. "This is not a nuisance case."
s /videos/didio_video.wvx
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/li
Laura DiDio, an analyst at The Yankee Group in Boston, said she was shown two or three samples of the allegedly copied Linux code, and it appeared to her that the sections were a "copy and paste" match of the SCO Unix code that she was shown in comparison.
DiDio and the other analysts were able to view the code only under a nondisclosure agreement,
Watch the "expert" Laura Didio on video from a credible source:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/fact
Enjoy her!
*lol*
How come I never get any of these "impartial surveys"? I have racks and racks of RHEL Linux servers that I only reboot when:
a. a machine suffers a hardware failure (fairly rare) or
b. there's a kernel update that impacts security
In the case of (b), I apply the updated rpms and reboot which normally results in a downtime of approximately 60 seconds for that server. This might happen a few times a year (single digits).
For our small number of Windows 2003 server boxes, it seems that each "windows update" cycle recommends a restart. We'll call that a once a month reboot when Microsoft gets around to releasing their monthly cleanup. Total server downtime is maybe 2-3 minutes (windows takes a bit longer to reboot on the identical hardware used with our Linux machines).
So while I *could* say that our windows servers are down XYZ percent more than our Linux servers, in terms of actual downtime, both platforms are about the same, with Linux seemingly holding a small edge in my experience.
Cheers,
According to Netcraft, they have a whopping 4 days since last reboot: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yanke egroup.com/
They also go with the bulletproof reliability of MS IIs
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Your math is wrong. 20% more downtime means 1.2 times as much downtime as the Windows box, not 20% of the year.
So if the Windows box is down for 10 hours per year, the Linux box is down for 12 according to the study.
(troll) Silence. Your sensibilities offend the Slashdot drones. (/troll)
I'm a Windows admin. It's what I know, and the only OS I have significant experience with. At my last job, the server with the most uptime was a RHEL3 box that only got rebooted when the ERP database performed its semi-annual crash ritual. Compare that to the four W2k3 boxes that were down about five or six days a year on average for various OS maintenance issues (in Microsoft's defense, we were *doing* a lot more with the Win servers, the Linux server only had one function)
Linux is a hard OS to administer without training. It's not something you can just dive into, and a lot of admins get it shoved on them because upper management decides on a software package that requires it. The result? Downtime because the admin is unfamiliar with Linux and doesn't know where to find the answers. So in that sense, this report is spot-on.
I do question the validity of the data, though. It seems like they picked a sample set that would yeild the results they wanted. A better survey would be to review servers with similar functions, regardless of whether users have both installed. It's no secret that Windows admins have a harder time with Linux and I agree something needs to be done to help them (us) take the plunge with confidence...but this study isn't going to have any impact on anything and was just a waste of someone's money. If they're looking to throw cash away, they should be throwing it at me, not studies.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.