So Much for the Linux Threat

I've seen it all and done it all, Bushie

So have I, Hal. So have I...

... I can tell you that you can devise the perfect plan and spend millions of dollars in disaster mitigations plans - and something will still go wrong. In the real world, we have things called "budgets" and "cost-effectiveness" that limit our ability to totally eliminate downtime.

Hal, perhaps you're misunderstanding. There are many types of systems that simply can't afford to be offline for any reason whatsoever. Example: Air traffic control systems. If you put your budget ahead of the resulting downtime, you've already failed a fundamental and primary requirement before you even undertake to setup such a system. Consequently, what I'm saying is that cost is not the most important factor to folks that need 5x9's of availability. It's well down the list, certainly well after availability and fitness for purpose.

5x9-class sytems are designed to avoid unplanned maintenance (ie. hardware and software failures), not survive any possible environmental disaster. Planning around disaster conditions is an orthogonal level of planning -- and has nothing to do particularly with the performance of a 5x9 system. There are things that you can do to avoid environmental impacts such as providing redundant power generation systems. Most nuclear power plants are constructed with highly-reinforced concrete in order to avoid disintegration during and after an earthquake.

5x9 systems tend to be very expensive. Most organizations don't need them -- and, based on your comments, I would hazard an educated guess that you simply don't need or use one.

So what you're saying is that if you required 5 nines, you'd jump all over the first vendor to come along, rather than shop around with those requirements? Give me a break.

That's not even close to what I was saying. Of course, you evaluate and compare the offerings of 5x9 vendors. But you DON'T even bother comparing with 4x9 vendors if you NEED 5x9's.

Oh, dang, I've been in Atlanta, didn't see this thead.

Just like old times! I miss the OS wars.

I am curious, I don't actually know -- are there vendors willing to guarantee 5x9 uptime with Windows/Intel boxes?

Personally, I'm seeing a *lot* of Linux. Some Windows. It varies, but I do see more Linux than Windows in the Enterprise.

But that's just in my J2EE-centric world, and YMMV.

If I were Linus, I'd have the system automatically diff every submission against the Sun source code.

That really only solves the kernel code problems. I have a feeling that a lot of the Sun code will be more useful in userland. Having every submission to every package diffed sounds like a pain in the rear.

This is why I am such a big fan of the BSD license, I wish people would release code in that form. Too bad even the BSDs can't be built without GPL code anymore.

-paridel

I am curious, I don't actually know -- are there vendors willing to guarantee 5x9 uptime with Windows/Intel boxes?

Scratch the Windows part... are there vender's willing to guarantee 5x9 on Intel boxes?

I think when you are talking that level of reliability I think the hardware failure possibility is much more important (not than the software, than it is for say 99.9%), and if you are talking about just a normal Intel box, even if it has cool features like hot swappable power supplies, I am almost certain the answer is no.

-paridel

Hmm great link lets see what I was posting in reply to.

Bush 2000: But, if you want to run Linux in your company as a database server or in some other kind of mission-critical role that demands five 9's of availability, it's not going to have the same kind of track record or reliability as Solaris.

So again, you said Linux is not good for 5 9's why dont you prove it..

Bysh, Lets sum things up

You say solaris gives 5x9 (which they dont guarentee on their mid range) but that Linux does not.

You then try to restrict the Linux side to Intel hardware, while thats not the hardware solaris offers. While solaris does support the x86 arch they dont guarentee 5x9 on it.

I point out for a cost (and a big one) IBM will support 5x9 on the Linux intel side. The problem is you have to hand them the keys, I dont have root on our production servers. I make changes in dev/test and pass on the instructions to IBM. I point out an article about a company teamed with IBM running a 5x9's linux intel server.

I also point out that solaris on sparc can be as expensive as Linux on a mainframe (IBM has come down in cost on their Mainframes lately).

Dude youre losing this one, let it go.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.