While it's true servers don't need to be restarted as often as Windows counterparts, there are valid reasons for restarting a server:
- new kernel, new features - new kernel, new security patches (yes, these are distinct reasons) - ensure all services restart in the event of a real failure - we have cases where memory fills and the system starts thrashing. It may cure itself eventually, but you can't get in via SSH or console (and no, the OOM killer doesn't kick in).
I think item #3 is important. If you have a crusty system that's been in place for a while and it reboots for some reason, you now have to spend time to make sure everything started, figure out what didn't start, and why. This doesn't mean you need to restart once a week, but every 6-12 months is certainly reasonable.
You missed the part about auditing. I've got a team of 6 sysadmins who manage 200+ systems. While we usually document what we do on each system, it's far better to have an audit trail of what commands were run by whom in case there's ever a question. Yes, we have used it in the past.
I'm not sure why the author claims to be a veteran sysadmin, but after points 1 and 2 being completely false I don't see the point in reading further.
As for me? Sysadmin for almost 20 years (18 with Linux). Five published works, and loads of magazine articles.
All you're talking about is scale. Instead of having a regular HTTP site, you now have HTTPS sites, and perhaps a few more to handle the load. HTTPS is not the CPU hog it was 10 years ago, and HTTPS is not some obscure technology noone uses. Wikipedia offers HTTPS, Google offers HTTPS. What makes it so difficult for Facebook to do the same?
I think the key points to your comment are in the article you linked to:
Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate.
Great. The author is confusing local weather with global climate.
For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.
I'm forced to agree with this, and I have not said that CO2 is the *only* thing to explain this (I listed methane and there's likely other gasses generated by humans that have the same effect).
I only claim many climatologists are a bunch of egoistic bullshitters.
The reason is simple press. The only time people will listen to dire warnings is when there's an example of the results of said dire warning.
You don't hear Fox crowing about how CC isn't happening when it's 100F in NYC for a month straight without a drop of rain - you hear it when there's 15 inches of snow.
Climatologists get attention when there's freaky weather. That's when people start asking "Hey, what's with the strange weather?" and climatologists are there with the answer.
That doesn't mean we should give up on greenhouse emissions because there's a big difference between getting there in,say fifty years vs eighty or a hundred.
Any delay in hitting this limit gives us time to come up with better solutions and is thus worth it.
As others have pointed out, rising based on what? How do you know what the co2 and methane levels were 1000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 100,000 years ago?
When we can't predict the weather accurately three hours from now, how exactly am I supposed to believe they can tell me precisely what effect we're having on the environment?
When you don't know the difference between weather and climate, how do you know what you're talking about?
It's all very good to observe this process but since there is little we can do to stop it...
I think I see your problem.
Here's the facts:
CO2 and methane are gasses that prevent thermal energy from escaping into space The CO2 and methane levels have been rising Human activity generates CO2 and methane
Given my phone will wipe itself after 10 failed attempts (thank you, ActiveSync), a brute-force attack on my phone will fail in a rather spectacular fashion rather quickly.
I wonder if I could sue for damages if they were to cause my phone to wipe itself.
You are aware that the GM bailout wiped out the existing shareholders, right? The situation wasn't nearly so fortunate for GM's former owners as your glib analysis would suggest.
Common shareholders. The govt's shares and likely institutional investors kept theirs - IIRC, the government is due to make a profit on their investment into GM.
This whole 'new technology is pricey and scary' has to stop. It's new, it's expensive, we get it.
Someone (GE in this case) will step up and start buying. As production increases, volume drives the cost down. Technology improvements drive the cost down even further.
It stinks that GM is losing money on these, but they're putting the effort into it, and I have to applaud them for it. Then again, didn't the PS3 and Xbox 360 cost more to make at launch time than they were selling for? Maybe GM is on to something...
AT&T and Verizon don't sell boosters, they're femtocells. Same result (better signal), different way to get there (femtocells rely on your existing Internet connection).
Slashdot Mirror
While it's true servers don't need to be restarted as often as Windows counterparts, there are valid reasons for restarting a server:
- new kernel, new features
- new kernel, new security patches (yes, these are distinct reasons)
- ensure all services restart in the event of a real failure
- we have cases where memory fills and the system starts thrashing. It may cure itself eventually, but you can't get in via SSH or console (and no, the OOM killer doesn't kick in).
I think item #3 is important. If you have a crusty system that's been in place for a while and it reboots for some reason, you now have to spend time to make sure everything started, figure out what didn't start, and why. This doesn't mean you need to restart once a week, but every 6-12 months is certainly reasonable.
You misspelled Firewire
You missed the part about auditing. I've got a team of 6 sysadmins who manage 200+ systems. While we usually document what we do on each system, it's far better to have an audit trail of what commands were run by whom in case there's ever a question. Yes, we have used it in the past.
I'm not sure why the author claims to be a veteran sysadmin, but after points 1 and 2 being completely false I don't see the point in reading further.
As for me? Sysadmin for almost 20 years (18 with Linux). Five published works, and loads of magazine articles.
Bankers?
Wait, what?
All you're talking about is scale. Instead of having a regular HTTP site, you now have HTTPS sites, and perhaps a few more to handle the load. HTTPS is not the CPU hog it was 10 years ago, and HTTPS is not some obscure technology noone uses. Wikipedia offers HTTPS, Google offers HTTPS. What makes it so difficult for Facebook to do the same?
Yeah, I'd use the recent Zodiac 'change' as a good example of what you describe.
Then again, if CC predicts strange weather and an expert in CC is asked, they're not incorrect if they say that.
Or you find an expert in El Nino to give an answer. Or El Nina. Or sunspots. Or cow farts.
I think the key points to your comment are in the article you linked to:
Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate.
Great. The author is confusing local weather with global climate.
For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.
I'm forced to agree with this, and I have not said that CO2 is the *only* thing to explain this (I listed methane and there's likely other gasses generated by humans that have the same effect).
I'll give you that. Good catch :)
I only claim many climatologists are a bunch of egoistic bullshitters.
The reason is simple press. The only time people will listen to dire warnings is when there's an example of the results of said dire warning.
You don't hear Fox crowing about how CC isn't happening when it's 100F in NYC for a month straight without a drop of rain - you hear it when there's 15 inches of snow.
Climatologists get attention when there's freaky weather. That's when people start asking "Hey, what's with the strange weather?" and climatologists are there with the answer.
"Can" and "Will" are two different things.
"Can we do something about it" has an answer of "We think so, or at least make the world a cleaner place in the process".
"Will we do something about it" appears to be "no".
But that's just academic ;)
You're still denying one of the three facts I listed above. Which is it, and why?
That doesn't mean we should give up on greenhouse emissions because there's a big difference between getting there in,say fifty years vs eighty or a hundred.
Any delay in hitting this limit gives us time to come up with better solutions and is thus worth it.
If you continue to ignore facts, I can see why you don't bother arguing.
As others have pointed out, rising based on what? How do you know what the co2 and methane levels were 1000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 100,000 years ago?
Ice cores how do they work?
When we can't predict the weather accurately three hours from now, how exactly am I supposed to believe they can tell me precisely what effect we're having on the environment?
When you don't know the difference between weather and climate, how do you know what you're talking about?
And we share 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees. What is your point?
It's all very good to observe this process but since there is little we can do to stop it...
I think I see your problem.
Here's the facts:
CO2 and methane are gasses that prevent thermal energy from escaping into space
The CO2 and methane levels have been rising
Human activity generates CO2 and methane
Thus, there's nothing we can do about it?
Given my phone will wipe itself after 10 failed attempts (thank you, ActiveSync), a brute-force attack on my phone will fail in a rather spectacular fashion rather quickly.
I wonder if I could sue for damages if they were to cause my phone to wipe itself.
Please learn the difference between weather and climate before you embarrass yourself more.
The Earth as a whole is warming, N Europe is cooling.
This is news to anyone who gets the first iteration of a new product?
Believe me, the government doesn't like paying twice for the same thing. Bad. Things. Happen.
I found one article that said the govt would get everything back from GM, but I figure the WSJ would be a better source.
Looks like we're both (currently) wrong. Most of this depends on what GM's stock price does as the US sells its shares, but on paper, it's a 20% loss.
You are aware that the GM bailout wiped out the existing shareholders, right? The situation wasn't nearly so fortunate for GM's former owners as your glib analysis would suggest.
Common shareholders. The govt's shares and likely institutional investors kept theirs - IIRC, the government is due to make a profit on their investment into GM.
This whole 'new technology is pricey and scary' has to stop. It's new, it's expensive, we get it.
Someone (GE in this case) will step up and start buying. As production increases, volume drives the cost down. Technology improvements drive the cost down even further.
It stinks that GM is losing money on these, but they're putting the effort into it, and I have to applaud them for it. Then again, didn't the PS3 and Xbox 360 cost more to make at launch time than they were selling for? Maybe GM is on to something...
AT&T and Verizon don't sell boosters, they're femtocells. Same result (better signal), different way to get there (femtocells rely on your existing Internet connection).