Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cleggy]

With MTBF figures like that the marketing boys should have a field day

[VXL V6]

With MTBF figures like that the marketing boys should have a field day

Thing is, if you never have to restart a server, hence it's discs constantly spin it will be less stressful than when it starts to spin them up. Things like power supplies are a lot happier running at a constant rather than having to start up a load of cold hardware with all of thier startup demands.

[Ian_D]

6.8 years 

Thats bloody impressive! 

Dunno how long my home server has been running since last reboot, will check and see in a moment. However it has been turned on 24/7 (minus the few hrs when its been off for hardware changes / UPS upgrades etc) for almost 5 years. Its only a crappy IBM eServer too! x206 IIRC... Which reminds me, need to shove a new backup tape in - its VERY VERY overdue 

I know none of the servers at home have long uptimes - the hypervisor that they all sit on has only been up approx 166 days.  Which is probably around the time when I swapped out the server hardware (July iirc)

Just looked and uptime is 140 days and 40 mins... Still not bad for home use I guess... (Windows 2003 on it). Want to get my hands on a better server to play about with hypervisors next - problem is finding a server which is A) Very Cheep B) Reliable C) Not too noisy and C) Supports VT

Oh and also one that doesn't turn my room into an oven! 

[TheBoy]

6.8 years 

Thats bloody impressive! 

Dunno how long my home server has been running since last reboot, will check and see in a moment. However it has been turned on 24/7 (minus the few hrs when its been off for hardware changes / UPS upgrades etc) for almost 5 years. Its only a crappy IBM eServer too! x206 IIRC... Which reminds me, need to shove a new backup tape in - its VERY VERY overdue 

I know none of the servers at home have long uptimes - the hypervisor that they all sit on has only been up approx 166 days.  Which is probably around the time when I swapped out the server hardware (July iirc)

Just looked and uptime is 140 days and 40 mins... Still not bad for home use I guess... (Windows 2003 on it). Want to get my hands on a better server to play about with hypervisors next - problem is finding a server which is A) Very Cheep B) Reliable C) Not too noisy and C) Supports VT

Oh and also one that doesn't turn my room into an oven! 

Guess you are not updating your W2K3 frequently then

[TheBoy]

I know the Windows server here has an uptime of about 16hrs, as it patched itself last night.

OOF server currently showing:
 20:39:33 up 60 days,  5:03,  1 user,  load average: 0.18, 0.15, 0.10

[Ian_D]

6.8 years 

Thats bloody impressive! 

Dunno how long my home server has been running since last reboot, will check and see in a moment. However it has been turned on 24/7 (minus the few hrs when its been off for hardware changes / UPS upgrades etc) for almost 5 years. Its only a crappy IBM eServer too! x206 IIRC... Which reminds me, need to shove a new backup tape in - its VERY VERY overdue 

I know none of the servers at home have long uptimes - the hypervisor that they all sit on has only been up approx 166 days.  Which is probably around the time when I swapped out the server hardware (July iirc)

Just looked and uptime is 140 days and 40 mins... Still not bad for home use I guess... (Windows 2003 on it). Want to get my hands on a better server to play about with hypervisors next - problem is finding a server which is A) Very Cheep B) Reliable C) Not too noisy and C) Supports VT

Oh and also one that doesn't turn my room into an oven! 

Guess you are not updating your W2K3 frequently then

No, thats a good point actually... however I will give updates a miss ATM, as theres only 400mb free on the C: drive 

[cem_devecioglu]

in the past , I have witnessed SQL server eating up memory and cpu resources (say nt4 and win2k and old version sql servers)
like a monster and slowing the system nearly to a halt.. but of course it depends on the type of transactions involved (also depending on the type of application)..  interestingly seen servers runninng sql server with low hardware resources on high number of users working without problem and monster servers dropping on their knees with a low number of users running transactions that require too many page locks..
 
also mail servers that nearly stop responding..
 
so I can say it depends on the type of application it serves..

[TheBoy]

in the past , I have witnessed SQL server eating up memory and cpu resources (say nt4 and win2k and old version sql servers)
like a monster and slowing the system nearly to a halt.. but of course it depends on the type of transactions involved (also depending on the type of application)..  interestingly seen servers runninng sql server with low hardware resources on high number of users working without problem and monster servers dropping on their knees with a low number of users running transactions that require too many page locks..
 
also mail servers that nearly stop responding..
 
so I can say it depends on the type of application it serves..

MS SQL server was always designed to hog all unused memory for performance, thus if you ran other processes that suddenly needed memory, it would page like a sod. Certainly 2005 and 2008 seem better in this respect