Re: Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

And how often has IBM's web site been down lately.  LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS.
Enough that I sarcastically say to them that I'm glad that IBM doesn't do
our website.

Rob Berendt

==================
A smart person learns from their mistakes,
but a wise person learns from OTHER peoples mistakes.



                    "Joe Pluta"
                    <joepluta@PlutaBrot       To:     <midrange-l@midrange.com>
                    hers.com>                 cc:
                    Sent by:                  Fax to:
                    midrange-l-admin@mi       Subject:     Interesting 
Assertions on W2K Stability
                    drange.com


                    10/03/2001 03:47 PM
                    Please respond to
                    midrange-l






> 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