Laura and the Yankee Group PR corrected this. The group rules...
BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 8, 2006--First graph, second sentence of release dated June 5, 2006 should read: In a head-to-head comparison, Windows Server 2003 shows the highest reliability gains, leading Red Hat Enterprise Linux Standard with nearly 20% less annual downtime. (sted leading Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20% more annual uptime in similar deployment scenarios.)
The corrected release reads:
YANKEE GROUP FINDS ALL MAINSTREAM SERVER OS PLATFORMS EXHIBIT A HIGH DEGREE OF RELIABILITY
Microsoft Windows Exhibits the Highest Performance Platform with the Exception of Unix Distributions
Yankee Group today revealed the results of its 2006 Global Server Reliability Survey, which found that all major server OS platforms have achieved a high degree of reliability. In a head-to-head comparison, Windows Server 2003 shows the highest reliability gains, leading Red Hat Enterprise Linux Standard with nearly 20% less annual downtime. Among mainstream server operating systems, only Unix-based server operating systems including HP-UX and Sun Solaris 10 bested Windows Server 2003.
As I posted yesterday I had emailed Laura, here is the transcript of her reply, mine etc.
Hi, :
Thanks for your response. Your comments are duly noted. Christina Oh and I will discuss the matter this morning. As an FYI, the body of the report does state that Windows Server 2003 experienced 20% less downtime than Red Hat Linux standard distribution. Laura
06/07/2006 07:52 PM
Subject RE: Press Release Error?
Laura,
This is simple math and, unfortunately and respectfully, you have it wrong. And no, it is not semantics. You're press release says 20% more uptime. Uptime is time running. To get 20% more uptime in a year based on a difference of 16 hours - 12.8 hours, or 3.2 hours net difference (RHEL standard) is just bad math. 3.2 hours more Windows uptime than RHEL out of 365 days = 3.2 / (24 hours * 365 days) = 3.2 hours / 8760 hours = 0.037% more uptime.
So, you can write the sentence only two ways:
Windows had 0.037% MORE UPTIME than RHEL or, Windows had 20% LESS DOWNTIME than RHEL
but...
Windows had 20% more uptime than RHEL is absolutely and mathematically wrong, misleading and could subject YankeeGroup to bad PR and possibly legal action.
I will put this another way...
All the hours in a year = 8760
Windows Server ran 8760 - 12.8 hours = 8747.2 hours. RHEL ran 8760 - 16 hours = 8744 hours. The difference is, as you see, 3.2 hours. Okay?
8747.2 divided by 8744 = 1.000366 or 100.0366%
IF Windows had 20% MORE UPTIME than RHEL, and Windows had 8747.2 hours, THEN mathematically RHEL would have run only 7289.333 hours. The difference is 1457.867 hours, or 60.744 days. So unless you believe that Windows outran RHEL for nearly 61 hours, which you agree it did not, then the sentence in that paragraph is just not true - no semantics about it.
Does the additional explanation help (I hope so). I know you don't intend to mislead readers, but the current press release creates a credibility gap for the firm that out to be addressed. Youu may also wish to contact the analyst relations folks at Redhat too...
Cheers,
------------------
From: LDiDio
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:27 PM
Hi, :
Thanks for taking the time out of your schedule to write to us regarding your concerns with the wording of the press release.
I think we're dealing with semantics here.
Here are the actual numbers we found:
Windows Server 2003 recorded an average downtime of 770 minutes or 12.8 hours per server, per year
Unix servers recorded an average downtime of just under 600 minutes or about 10 hours, per server, per year
Red Hat standard servers recorded an average downtime of approximately 950 minutes or roughly 16 hours, per server, per year
Red Hat custom Linux distributions (and I'm referring here to instances in which corporations have modified the kernel) recorded an average downtime of 750 minutes or 12.5 hours, per server, per year.
The high end of the downtime -- the 19.5 hours, does not refer to Red Hat and the press release does not claim that it does. As an FYI, the press release statement citing the 10 hours to 19.5 hours of per server, per year downtime are the high and low ranges. However, for the record, the 19.5 hours on the high end is not Red Hat. That actually refers to Debian (big surprise there!) which according to the respondents scored the worst of any of the 11 different server operating system choices the users were asked to rate. Among niche market Linux and open source server distributions, Debian had the dubious distinction of recording the highest outage time: 1,170 minutes per server, per year, which equals 19.5 hours. Other niche market Linux distributions such as Turbolinux and Mandriva fared better: they each experienced approximately 960 minutes of outages, equating to 16 hours of per annum downtime for each server.
The specific statement, "with nearly 20% more annual uptime" is I believe factually not supported by your numbers. Do you mean that Windows has 20% LESS DOWNTIME than RHEL?
"on average, individual corporate Linux, Windows and Unix servers experience three to five failures per server per year, resulting in 10.0 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server."
If RHEL had 19.5 hours of downtime, and WIndows had 15 hours of downtime, this would be 20% less downtime. 5 hours less downtime per year is actually real data and would be useful to the press release.
On the other hand, 20% more annual uptime would actually result in RHEL being down nearly 61 DAYS per year assuming Windows is up 100.000%.Note: 60.8333 days = 365 - (365/1.2)
-----------
The report may be correct. The press release is most certainly in error.
Is Carl Buck according to the news story. If he loses the expulsion hearing, perhaps Buck would take some Slash-bucks contributions to sue the school district over First Ammendment issues.
http://www.rcklawfirm.com/ is where he practices.
Email Carl cbuck@rcklawfirm.com
Slashdot Mirror
BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 8, 2006--First graph, second sentence of release dated June 5, 2006 should read: In a head-to-head comparison, Windows Server 2003 shows the highest reliability gains, leading Red Hat Enterprise Linux Standard with nearly 20% less annual downtime. (sted leading Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20% more annual uptime in similar deployment scenarios.)
The corrected release reads:
YANKEE GROUP FINDS ALL MAINSTREAM SERVER OS PLATFORMS EXHIBIT A HIGH DEGREE OF RELIABILITY
Microsoft Windows Exhibits the Highest Performance Platform with the Exception of Unix Distributions
Yankee Group today revealed the results of its 2006 Global Server Reliability Survey, which found that all major server OS platforms have achieved a high degree of reliability. In a head-to-head comparison, Windows Server 2003 shows the highest reliability gains, leading Red Hat Enterprise Linux Standard with nearly 20% less annual downtime. Among mainstream server operating systems, only Unix-based server operating systems including HP-UX and Sun Solaris 10 bested Windows Server 2003.
Hi, :
Thanks for your response. Your comments are duly noted. Christina Oh and I will discuss the matter this morning. As an FYI, the body of the report does state that Windows Server 2003 experienced 20% less downtime than Red Hat Linux standard distribution. Laura
06/07/2006 07:52 PM
Subject RE: Press Release Error?
Laura,
This is simple math and, unfortunately and respectfully, you have it wrong. And no, it is not semantics. You're press release says 20% more uptime. Uptime is time running. To get 20% more uptime in a year based on a difference of 16 hours - 12.8 hours, or 3.2 hours net difference (RHEL standard) is just bad math. 3.2 hours more Windows uptime than RHEL out of 365 days = 3.2 / (24 hours * 365 days) = 3.2 hours / 8760 hours = 0.037% more uptime.
So, you can write the sentence only two ways:
Windows had 0.037% MORE UPTIME than RHEL or, Windows had 20% LESS DOWNTIME than RHEL
but...
Windows had 20% more uptime than RHEL is absolutely and mathematically wrong, misleading and could subject YankeeGroup to bad PR and possibly legal action.
I will put this another way...
All the hours in a year = 8760
Windows Server ran 8760 - 12.8 hours = 8747.2 hours. RHEL ran 8760 - 16 hours = 8744 hours. The difference is, as you see, 3.2 hours. Okay?
8747.2 divided by 8744 = 1.000366 or 100.0366%
IF Windows had 20% MORE UPTIME than RHEL, and Windows had 8747.2 hours, THEN mathematically RHEL would have run only 7289.333 hours. The difference is 1457.867 hours, or 60.744 days. So unless you believe that Windows outran RHEL for nearly 61 hours, which you agree it did not, then the sentence in that paragraph is just not true - no semantics about it.
Does the additional explanation help (I hope so). I know you don't intend to mislead readers, but the current press release creates a credibility gap for the firm that out to be addressed. Youu may also wish to contact the analyst relations folks at Redhat too...
Cheers,
------------------ From: LDiDio
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:27 PM
Hi, :
Thanks for taking the time out of your schedule to write to us regarding your concerns with the wording of the press release.
I think we're dealing with semantics here.
Here are the actual numbers we found:
Windows Server 2003 recorded an average downtime of 770 minutes or 12.8 hours per server, per year Unix servers recorded an average downtime of just under 600 minutes or about 10 hours, per server, per year Red Hat standard servers recorded an average downtime of approximately 950 minutes or roughly 16 hours, per server, per year Red Hat custom Linux distributions (and I'm referring here to instances in which corporations have modified the kernel) recorded an average downtime of 750 minutes or 12.5 hours, per server, per year.
The high end of the downtime -- the 19.5 hours, does not refer to Red Hat and the press release does not claim that it does. As an FYI, the press release statement citing the 10 hours to 19.5 hours of per server, per year downtime are the high and low ranges. However, for the record, the 19.5 hours on the high end is not Red Hat. That actually refers to Debian (big surprise there!) which according to the respondents scored the worst of any of the 11 different server operating system choices the users were asked to rate. Among niche market Linux and open source server distributions, Debian had the dubious distinction of recording the highest outage time: 1,170 minutes per server, per year, which equals 19.5 hours. Other niche market Linux distributions such as Turbolinux and Mandriva fared better: they each experienced approximately 960 minutes of outages, equating to 16 hours of per annum downtime for each server.
So the actual downt
You probably should not read the DiDio-bashing going on over at Slashdot today, but I do see what I believe is an error in the presentation of the data in the press release http://www.yankeegroup.com/public/news_releases/ne ws_release_detail.jsp?ID=PressReleases/news.server reliabilitysurvey.DiDio.htm.
The specific statement, "with nearly 20% more annual uptime" is I believe factually not supported by your numbers. Do you mean that Windows has 20% LESS DOWNTIME than RHEL?
"on average, individual corporate Linux, Windows and Unix servers experience three to five failures per server per year, resulting in 10.0 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server."
If RHEL had 19.5 hours of downtime, and WIndows had 15 hours of downtime, this would be 20% less downtime. 5 hours less downtime per year is actually real data and would be useful to the press release.
On the other hand, 20% more annual uptime would actually result in RHEL being down nearly 61 DAYS per year assuming Windows is up 100.000%.Note: 60.8333 days = 365 - (365/1.2)
----------- The report may be correct. The press release is most certainly in error.
Is Carl Buck according to the news story. If he loses the expulsion hearing, perhaps Buck would take some Slash-bucks contributions to sue the school district over First Ammendment issues. http://www.rcklawfirm.com/ is where he practices. Email Carl cbuck@rcklawfirm.com