RE: Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability

["Draper, Dale" <dale.draper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting link, don't know exactly how accurate, but interesting:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.msn.com&mode_u=on&mode_w=on&avg
_days=360&submit=Redisplay+Graph



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pluta [SMTP:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:48 PM
> To:   midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject:      Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability
>
> > Maybe 99.99%, that would be almost an hour. That I'd buy. Of course I
> have
> > no problem getting that from a cluster of W2K machines either.
>
> I suppose you're right, especially if you have the expertise.  It should
> be
> no problem keeping your down time to under an hour if you know how to
> administer the machine.  Like, say, Microsoft should.
>
> Oh wait.  How many times was MSN down this year?  For how long?  They may
> have managed 90% uptime (that'd be 88 hours downtime), but not 99%, and
> certainly not 99.99%.  I go by what I see, and it I haven't seen that
> clustered MS servers are particularly reliable.
>
> And if your argument is that Microsoft is not running W2K clusters
> (because
> I have no idea what MS is running - other than the work they outsource to
> AS/400's), then my question is "Why not?".
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.