RE: Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability

["Bruce A. Collins" <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

But what kind of Cluster! To me M$ is running a Mongolian Cluster. <VBG>

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:48 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.