Announcement

**dibl** · Apr 20, 2010, 04:26 AM

Re: Linux !

"Strength" is kind of an odd term for an operating system .... :P

A stable Linux system, on a solid hardware platform, will indeed run for about as long as the hardware holds together, if that's what you need to do. Which is a good thing for a server.

However, for desktop and laptop systems, you'll waste a lot of electricity letting it run when no one is using it for many hours per day. Plus, there is such a thing as a security update, which oftern involves a new kernel, and requires rebooting to take effect.

**mzalfres** · Apr 20, 2010, 06:54 AM

Re: Linux !

I think it could be also related to well known behaviour of the most popular operating systems, which are going to be slower and slower in time, especially when you play around with installing/uninstalling/reconfiguring a lot of software. And also they are going to be less stable when you install a lot of software. To say nothing about viruses/worms/malware which is marginal problem in linux.

**vivek40** · Apr 20, 2010, 08:15 AM

Re: Linux !

I had posted the same topic on the Ubuntu forum as well.. please have a look!

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1458532

**GreyGeek** · Apr 20, 2010, 09:49 AM

Re: Linux !

An historical side note:

In the early 90s distros like SuSE, for example, introduced "repository" management applications like YAST, for example, but these were primarily for installing applications that were on the CD that one purchased from various sources. Most folks used dialups and did not have the connection speed (bandwidth) to download 700MB or 4GB of an iso file in order to burn an installation CD. BTW, these CDs were installation CDs, not LiveCDs, which hadn't been invented yet. Also, kernel and application upgrades did not appear as frequently as they do today. New applications were individually downloaded from the Internet from sites like RPMBone and installed one at a time. IF a dependency was encountered it was downloaded and installed, repeat, wash, spin, until one could finally install the desired application. Sometimes, trying to install one dependency would conflict with dependencies required by other applications, thus preventing one from installing the new application without doing a major overhaul of one's system. For this conflict the term "Dependency Hell" was created.

It was not uncommon for one to install Linux from a purchased CD onto their PC and never do another reinstall for months or even years. At work I installed SuSE 6.4 as a PostgreSQL server and it ran non-stop for 465 (IIRC) days before I had to bring it down in order to plug in an errant Unix drive from a Kodak Image maintenance system. We created 50kb jpg images of all incoming paper documents and stored them on the Kodak Unix system. When the Kodak system experienced problems the clerks would just reboot it without unmounting it. After a few weeks (months?) the system experienced an abend from which it could not recover. The IT guys tried several of their tricks trying to pull the images off of the HD, but they couldn't get DOS to see the indexes or the images. They knew I knew Linux so they brought the HD by and asked if I could mount it on my Linux server and pull the info off. Fortunately, Linux includes the ability to mount Unix systems. I used the dd command to pull the HD image off in one big 1GB text file. Then I used PFE (a lightening fast text editor which could scan the entire 1GB file in a few seconds) to capture and correlate the indexes with the jpg image files. I succeeded in recovering over 95% of the images. Some of the images were 15 years old (that's how long the Kodak system had been running) but even then, because of lawsuits and legal issues, access to any particular image could be required at any time.

After that task I removed the Kodak HD and rebooted. The SuSE system continued to run for another 135 or so days before I installed RH 3.0 on it and set it to doing other purposes.

During that period of time there was an ongoing debate in the newsgroups about which system had the longest uptimes, Linux or Windows? Linux users were reporting up times in excess of 400 days. Windows users were reporting similar up times in those flame wars. Then, Microsoft announced the 49.7 day clock bug, a bug which automatically REBOOTED the Windows OS when its clock counter reached 32767, which took 49.7 days. All those Windows users claiming months of uptime had egg on their face, and their claims were revealed as obvious lies. That was the end of the uptimes flamewars.

**vivek40** · Apr 20, 2010, 10:58 AM

Re: Linux !

That was a real nice post GreyGeek.. have copied pasted your reply in Ubuntu forums with due respect and credit to you!!!

**oshunluvr** · Apr 20, 2010, 03:09 PM

Re: Linux !

I think another reason for the uptime is - if you're experienced, most parts of the system can be restarted without a reboot. Thus removing at least some of the reason to do so.

My system gets restarted (in order of most likely reason) because:

kernel updates
GRUB edits or updates
I went on vacation and turned it off
I installed a new linux OS
I am upgrading hardware

I have had uptimes varying from several minutes to many months.

**GreyGeek** · Apr 20, 2010, 04:28 PM

Re: Linux !

At work I used to leave my Linux PostgreSQL server on 24/7/365 and my Windows workstation on 24/7. I soon gave up on leaving the Windows box on because it would either lock up or crash during the night (even though it was unused) and I had to reboot it in the morning. I also noticed that the greater the number of days it was up the slower it got and the more likely I'd have a crash, especially when I was running several apps or using large amounts of memory. When 9/11 hit and energy became a concern I started shutting my Windows workstation off at quitting time. Rebooting every day my XP OS rarely locked up or crashed, and it was alway much quicker than when it had been running for several days.

Two things changed department policy during the last five years of my employment: 1) we replaced desktops with laptops, and the IT support crew noticed that when folks shut down their Windows workstations every night they gave fewer problems, and 2) workstations that were off didn't have locks on applications and databases which would prevent automatic backup systems that ran every night from making backups of our applications and data.

At home, before 2005 I used desktops and left them on 24/7 for convenience. Running Linux there never was a problem with lockups, crashing or slowdowns. One day, while looking around at my three computers, three CRT monitors (one a 27 inch), one laser printer and one bubble jet printer, a scanner, cable modem and passive router, I wondered how much power they were consuming. IIRC, it was around 3 Kw. Even at 7 cents/hr the monthly bill was over $150. I checked with my wife and she said our electric bill was almost $250/month.

I replaced my desktops with 100 watt laptops and the printer with an ML-1210 laser printer, which I turned on only when I needed to print. I replaced the scanner with a 3-in-one HP all-in-one and turn it on only when I need to. I turn off the laptop every night and rarely have it on more than 12 hours a day. My wife uses her laptop only an hour or so a day. Now, our the portion of our electric bill due to our computers is less than $3/month, and my electric bill rarely goes over $76/month.

**oshunluvr** · Apr 20, 2010, 09:02 PM

Re: Linux !

Thats a huge difference. I like my computer on all the time so....

...Don't tell my wife!

**vivek40** · Apr 20, 2010, 09:54 PM

Re: Linux !

Hii GreyGeek.. there are some arguments to your post(which as I had informed you that I had done a copy paste on the ubuntu forum)... You possibly might want to have a look at them...... however they are not that important....... this latest post of yours is again worth reading and I will definitely not let the guys at ubuntu forums miss it.....

**vivek40** · Apr 20, 2010, 10:34 PM

Re: Linux !

For those who dont know much about the windows 49.7 day bug.. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641.
The issue seems to be with win 95/98 though

**GreyGeek** · Apr 21, 2010, 02:59 PM

Re: Linux !

AFAIK, the bug was limited to Win9x. I don't remember which news group it was on, but I suspect that it was the SuSE newsgroup, because I was running SuSE 5.3 at the time, Which I installed in Sept of 1998. It was before all the Y2K stuff, in the late fall of 1998 and early spring of 1999, IIRC. The MS URL you reference has been edited many times, and the 2007 edit refers to "hanging". During the flame wars I definitely remember the MS announcement to spontaneous rebooting.

Announcement

Linux !

Linux !

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing This Topic